How to register a Kei truck in Pennsylvania(danwilkerson.com)
danwilkerson.com
How to register a Kei truck in Pennsylvania
https://danwilkerson.com/posts/2023-05-30-how-to-register-a-kei-truck-in-pa
403 comments
My province prohibited all right-hand drive vehicles, because there were so many kei trucks coming in.
(1) https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/transportat...
(1) https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/transportat...
One of the PEI exemptions is "manufactured 25 years ago or more", which sounds like the same situation as Pennsylvania, no?
(I assume the "and" in the list on that page is the conversational meaning, not the legal meaning, since there aren't very many 25-year-old street sweeping mail trucks out there.)
PEI feels like the perfect sized province for a kei truck!
(I assume the "and" in the list on that page is the conversational meaning, not the legal meaning, since there aren't very many 25-year-old street sweeping mail trucks out there.)
PEI feels like the perfect sized province for a kei truck!
I never noticed the "vintage" exemption!
Isn't this just a ridiculous concept? Applies not just to this but so many things.
Government says "no" for no good reason other than corruption. And we all just sit back and take it. Hmm.
Government says "no" for no good reason other than corruption. And we all just sit back and take it. Hmm.
Land of the free! Amiright?
Hmmm....what if I just acted like I manufactured the truck and just get a new title?
If you're asking whether fraud is going to work out, the answer is "maybe" but you probably don't want to have to show up in court for something so dumb
Why is it fraud? Just do what you need to do to comply and get a new VIN.
The phrase 'acted like' typically implies fraud in this context. If you have something else in mind it might do to clarify that.
In the PNW these are absolutely everywhere and for good reason - they're exactly what most people need when they need a truck bed for hauling capacity. Plus, many are 4/AWD and have relatively high clearance so they're great adventure wagons for forest roads and getting out there.
If a manufacturer made a truck similar (or slightly larger - not much room for people 6' and over in them) available for the market here, I'm sure they'd sell well. Seems like the biggest impediment is the safety laws here though and American insistence on having the biggest vehicle on the road.
If a manufacturer made a truck similar (or slightly larger - not much room for people 6' and over in them) available for the market here, I'm sure they'd sell well. Seems like the biggest impediment is the safety laws here though and American insistence on having the biggest vehicle on the road.
Another advantage for off-road kei trucks is they are narrow, allowing you to drive around obstacles that you would need a lot of clearance (big tires/lift kits.) A lot of trails in the PNW get overgrown and a narrow vehicle that weighs less causes less trail erosion and can squeeze past obstacles rather then going over them.
My understanding is that in Japan insurance cost is based on your odometer, and there are strict inspection and maintenance requirements (mandatory replacement of suspension after so many KMs) so most of these vehicles are lightly used before export. I notice saber rattling by the auto industry here in B.C. trying to limit imports, I see this as a regulatory capture move, I'm not impressed!
Trucks used to be cheap utility vehicles with fairly basic mechanics, but they've turned in giant luxury land yachts with a price to match. They aren't even a good fit for a lot of kinds of work anymore.
If we allow motorcycles to drive on roads I don't see why we couldn't have some sort of limited road use exemption for these simple vehicles. At the very least you should be able to just buy them for farm use.
If we allow motorcycles to drive on roads I don't see why we couldn't have some sort of limited road use exemption for these simple vehicles. At the very least you should be able to just buy them for farm use.
You can drive whatever you want on private property. It's the 'going on the road' part that adds on the government oversight.
In Oregon, Kei cars are specifically illegal, they cannot be titled or registered. Other states are following a similar path so definitely make sure you can title it before you buy it.
> In Oregon, Kei cars are specifically illegal...
That's what the OR DMV suggests, but this is their own made-up policy, not law. They didn't even bother putting it in writing until relatively recently. So far they've failed to put their actively enforced kei policy into Oregon law [0]. They simply decided to stonewall a subset of 80's and 90's Japanese cars.
It's not about safety, or emissions, or top speed, or size. Titling and registering underpowered microcars from not-Japan is quick and painless. Pre-80's kei is fine too. Multiple pre-'80's Subaru 360 and Mazda R360 literally-kei cars sport current Oregon license plates, also relatively more common eventually-kei pre-'80's examples like Honda N600/Z600/S600. Also kit cars, street rods, from-scratch homebuilt cars, and literal golf carts the DMV is explicitly happy to title and register [1]. All they're unilaterally regulating is the taint of one specific Japanese initiative that they don't like.
Just for fun, kei trucks now get a vaguely worded exception. So if you feel like a gamble it could be possible to buy one and legally drive it to your mailbox or tow behind your RV. Or you'll draw an uncooperative DMV employee, and depending on where you live, zoning or your HOA might force you to destroy it if they catch you keeping it quietly locked up in your garage. The DMV can create an illegal situation that you are liable for by refusing to title a car, even though the car itself isn't illegal by law.
Oregon DMV's policies have long been inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious, and some other things besides.
[0] https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors801.html
[1] https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/Pages/vehicle/vehicletypes.a...
That's what the OR DMV suggests, but this is their own made-up policy, not law. They didn't even bother putting it in writing until relatively recently. So far they've failed to put their actively enforced kei policy into Oregon law [0]. They simply decided to stonewall a subset of 80's and 90's Japanese cars.
It's not about safety, or emissions, or top speed, or size. Titling and registering underpowered microcars from not-Japan is quick and painless. Pre-80's kei is fine too. Multiple pre-'80's Subaru 360 and Mazda R360 literally-kei cars sport current Oregon license plates, also relatively more common eventually-kei pre-'80's examples like Honda N600/Z600/S600. Also kit cars, street rods, from-scratch homebuilt cars, and literal golf carts the DMV is explicitly happy to title and register [1]. All they're unilaterally regulating is the taint of one specific Japanese initiative that they don't like.
Just for fun, kei trucks now get a vaguely worded exception. So if you feel like a gamble it could be possible to buy one and legally drive it to your mailbox or tow behind your RV. Or you'll draw an uncooperative DMV employee, and depending on where you live, zoning or your HOA might force you to destroy it if they catch you keeping it quietly locked up in your garage. The DMV can create an illegal situation that you are liable for by refusing to title a car, even though the car itself isn't illegal by law.
Oregon DMV's policies have long been inconsistent, arbitrary, capricious, and some other things besides.
[0] https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors801.html
[1] https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/Pages/vehicle/vehicletypes.a...
Any bored billionaires here or NGOs willing to finance a suit?
Bill Gates already did, for his Porsche 959, which was made illegal by the 1988 Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act. His lobbying resulted in the 1999 Show or Display law, which allows such vehicles, though they are limited to 2,500 miles per year.
> Show or Display law
Dammit. Even with his money he barely managed to scratch his own itch.
Dammit. Even with his money he barely managed to scratch his own itch.
These people follow different rules. Famously, Steve Jobs used a rule that allows a car to be driven without a license plate if it is newer than 6 months, and he just got a new one every 6 months to never have license plates.
Every time when I think I have an idea on how much asshole and terrible human being he was tidbit like this comes out and deepens it...
Don't pretend that you wouldn't do the same thing if you had a net worth of multiple billions. =)
I certainly would, if the license plate would offend my aesthetics.
I certainly would, if the license plate would offend my aesthetics.
My understanding is people kept stealing his license plate and he was getting so much trouble for it he just went with the loophole.
This just doesnt seem all that bad?
I'm not sure what other event top poster was referring to, but I would consider driving a car without plates to be especially bad on it's own. That's like willfully excluding yourself from all the car related laws, can't be issued a speed ticket, can't be found after an accident, can't be ticketed for illegal parking and so on. The sheer arrogance of driving a car without plates or with fake plates or with plates illegally swapped from a different vehicle is infuriating. In my country this is done by the most sociopathic rich people there are - criminals "in law", some marginal parliament members, sons of oligarchs etc.
These would all be covered by the federal 25 year rule… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_import_vehicle
Register a Montana-based LLC and shove the kei into registration in Montana. If rich folks can do it to evade taxes on their supercars, we can do it to evade registration requirements...
Is that for safety or market protection reasons?
Not an expert on Oregonian law, but my theory is that Oregon's motor vehicle law references the federal NHTSA regulations, and Kei vehicles laughably don't meet them (exterior lighting, crash performance, theft resistance, emissions, and so on).
An owner might be able to use it as an off-road vehicle only (no title, no tag, with maybe only comprehensive insurance), but that's not the point of buying one for a lot of owners.
An owner might be able to use it as an off-road vehicle only (no title, no tag, with maybe only comprehensive insurance), but that's not the point of buying one for a lot of owners.
NHTSA has a 25-year rule that allows a car old than 25 years to be imported without those considerations. You can definitely import them legally in Texas. I find it funny that we disallow these new smaller trucks, but we allow folks to jack up the suspension on an already large American truck 24 inches, install a grille guard, and it's still considered legal.
In most places all of this is still illegal, but then again, is the person with this mindset who you want to pull over today?
They are also huge offenders! At least in Los Angeles.
A pet project of @FilmThePoliceLA is filming & posting videos of cops’ personal vehicles with illegal modifications. He calls them out directly if he sees them, they never have any reasonable response.
A pet project of @FilmThePoliceLA is filming & posting videos of cops’ personal vehicles with illegal modifications. He calls them out directly if he sees them, they never have any reasonable response.
That's such bullshit when motorcycles are allowed on the road.
...or when my local inspection station, and the cops, don't even blink at a Ford 350 with a huge-ass lift kit, mud tires that don't grip for shit and extend inches (or more) past the fenders which is insanely dangerous, a front bumper that has been replaced with a thick sheetmetal version, and the rear plate is covered by a tinted, a glossy plate cover that makes the plate virtually impossible to read, and the cherry on the pie: a "DPF delete" which means the guy is belching diesel particulate everywhere he goes.
Wait until you hear about the “Carolina Squat”
It's funny you mention that. The other day I was out on mine on a coastal highway here, waving at a bunch of other people doing the same thing, and thinking "If someone invented these today there's no way they'd let them on the road."
They're a lot of fun though.
They're a lot of fun though.
I'll play devil's advocate on this one -- most motorcycles sold today will do 125mph and the Kei trucks I'm familiar with cruise at around 55mph reliably (some may technically go up to 65mph if you sit there redlining). I'd guess some concern comes from holding up single-lane traffic. And this is coming from someone who loves the Kei trucks in rural New Hampshire, but I have been stuck behind them before too.
Also motorcycles are a part of Americana history (there's no "Easy Rider" where two guys ride a Kei truck cross-country). I'm not at all sure motorcycles would be allowed if they just started popping up 10 years ago in the US, we've gotten risk averse in recent times.
Also motorcycles are a part of Americana history (there's no "Easy Rider" where two guys ride a Kei truck cross-country). I'm not at all sure motorcycles would be allowed if they just started popping up 10 years ago in the US, we've gotten risk averse in recent times.
A single lane road with a speed limit above 55 but no passing zones is a strange beast indeed. Don't think I've ever seen one. Also plenty of construction and farm equipment is street legal despite some of them not being able to break 25mph.
As always, it's a speed limit, not a speed target. Overtaking lanes exist for a reason. As long as someone isn't going unreasonably below the speed limit (which is also unsafe), then it's completely fine.
Dark take with just enough data to make it a talking point: motorcycles allow the rider to fly off and die from a traumatic brain injury, while preserving their organs.
If you’re crushed in a Kei car they probably won’t be able to salvage much.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/01/health/organ-donation-motorcy...
If you’re crushed in a Kei car they probably won’t be able to salvage much.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/01/health/organ-donation-motorcy...
Typically only true if you're not wearing a helmet.
The only reason given is that they are not manufactured for US highways. Which may be a roundabout way of saying they aren't capable of going highway speeds.
This seems like a weird way of US states attempting to enforce their own local interpretation of federal laws and not laws that actually exist as state code. Anything that's over 25 years old is specifically exempt from federal FMVSS. If it's under 25 years old you can't legally import it anyways for use on US roads (with title, etc).
People do import <25 year old kei type vehicles for use exclusively on private property on large ranches and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_S...
google "usa 25 year import car rule".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=USA+25+ye...
People do import <25 year old kei type vehicles for use exclusively on private property on large ranches and such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_S...
google "usa 25 year import car rule".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=USA+25+ye...
States are not required to register cars just because the federal government allows them to be imported or sold. They can add requirements consistent with their own laws, as California infamously does causing 49-state cars and parts.
Whether categorically blocking kei car registrations is consistent with the laws of some of the states doing it is a question in some ongoing lawsuits, though.
Whether categorically blocking kei car registrations is consistent with the laws of some of the states doing it is a question in some ongoing lawsuits, though.
Different US states' very unique interpretation of laws on certain things is something I have seen that needs explanation to foreign visitors and people who immigrate, from countries where there is one consistent legal code and regulation system of various products at the national level...
Marijuana regulations and firearms (and limitations of different types of firearms) are two obvious examples. Other things like per-state family leave laws for employees, employment law, landlord tenant law as well.
Marijuana regulations and firearms (and limitations of different types of firearms) are two obvious examples. Other things like per-state family leave laws for employees, employment law, landlord tenant law as well.
> Different US states' very unique interpretation of laws on certain things is something I have seen that needs explanation
Definitely! Especially here on HN. A lot of the questions & criticisms I see from people outside the US likely stem from ignorance about how the government of US is constructed. The states really are very powerful, even ~250 years into the experiment.
Definitely! Especially here on HN. A lot of the questions & criticisms I see from people outside the US likely stem from ignorance about how the government of US is constructed. The states really are very powerful, even ~250 years into the experiment.
>The states really are very powerful, even ~250 years into the experiment.
And in fact, the states hold absolute power over the federal government because the Constitution can be amended by a two-thirds majority of the states. Absolutely noone in the federal government, including Congress and the Supreme Court, can get in their way because the federal government derives their power from the states.
The only entity that the states answer to is the people, from whom the states derive their powers.
And in fact, the states hold absolute power over the federal government because the Constitution can be amended by a two-thirds majority of the states. Absolutely noone in the federal government, including Congress and the Supreme Court, can get in their way because the federal government derives their power from the states.
The only entity that the states answer to is the people, from whom the states derive their powers.
2/3 of states required to call a convention, 3/4 of the convention (which includes the states that show up, not just the callers) to amend the constitution.
Or 2/3 majority of both houses to propose and 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify amendments.
Or 2/3 majority of both houses to propose and 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify amendments.
It would appear I had remembered the wrong specific number, so thanks for that refresher!
https://nonasuch.tumblr.com/post/616921709864468480/do-non-a...
“Do non-americans realize that the United States is literally just a bunch of countries in a trench coat that agreed to be semi-nice to each other in order to sneak into the Big Boy Club? Because let’s be honest that’s just what the USA is”
“Do non-americans realize that the United States is literally just a bunch of countries in a trench coat that agreed to be semi-nice to each other in order to sneak into the Big Boy Club? Because let’s be honest that’s just what the USA is”
"a bunch of countries in a trench coat that agreed to be semi-nice to each other in order to sneak into the Big Boy Club"
Well the US was hardly the first to take that approach!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdo...
However, I would point that here in the UK I suspect most people are actually completely unaware of the fact that there are multiple legal and education systems in our "country of countries".
Well the US was hardly the first to take that approach!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdo...
However, I would point that here in the UK I suspect most people are actually completely unaware of the fact that there are multiple legal and education systems in our "country of countries".
one wonders who we learned it from!
Don't forget alcohol! Widely different regulations, sometimes county to county. Some states only allow liquor stores to sell spirits, some only allow hard alcohol sales on Sunday mornings, some counties allow no alcohol sales before noon on Sundays, other counties outright ban the sale of alcohol, others enable drive through liquor pickup, on and on.
> Different US states' very unique interpretation of laws on certain things is something I have seen that needs explanation to foreign visitors and people who immigrate,
Your examples are actually different state laws, not different “unique” interpretations of laws, which is a pretty big mistake for someone who talks about needing to explain the situation to others.
Your examples are actually different state laws, not different “unique” interpretations of laws, which is a pretty big mistake for someone who talks about needing to explain the situation to others.
I think it's clear that I meant different interpretations (politically) at a state level of what law should be written and implemented on certain things or activities.
This is mainly a federal distinction though.
IIRC some federal countries like Canada or India have even greater variance between states.
IIRC some federal countries like Canada or India have even greater variance between states.
Canada has one unified criminal code nation wide. For instance a province can't make weed legal or enact laws banning certain guns that are ok in others. The weird regional variations in Canada are like, ICBC as monopoly car registration + vehicle liability insurance in BC. Quebec language laws are another weird regional thing.
Canada has heavier restrictions on interstate/provincial commerce, including the fact that it is generally illegal to bring alcohol between provinces: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Free_Trade_Agreemen...
Road legal is entirely a state thing. The federal law is all about what is legal to import or offer for sale.
A different example would be emissions testing. Good ol' Michigan doesn't do it, so if you are moving to another state that does do it, it pays to think about whether your vehicle is going to pass.
A different example would be emissions testing. Good ol' Michigan doesn't do it, so if you are moving to another state that does do it, it pays to think about whether your vehicle is going to pass.
It's bonkers how many laws there are against perfectly ordinary and normal things like importing cars in the Land of the "Free".
In the UK you basically just need it to have some form of braking system and nothing likely to slice open or skewer pedestrians as you drive past, and be able to insure it.
In the UK you basically just need it to have some form of braking system and nothing likely to slice open or skewer pedestrians as you drive past, and be able to insure it.
That's one reason why the UK is considered DIY vehicle heaven. And also why it is very much a pity that it dropped out of the EU because that gave a neat little loophole for a while.
There's a lot of reasons it's a pity it dropped out of the EU, but one upside is that it gives us room to rejoin as a proper member, using the Euro, in Schengen, etc.
Or, maybe just Scotland and NI, and Wales and England can become independent.
Or, maybe just Scotland and NI, and Wales and England can become independent.
> There's a lot of reasons it's a pity it dropped out of the EU
Yes, sorry I did not mean to give the impression that that was a major thing, just one more item that I've seen people use in creative ways. But obviously it's just a tiny footnote in a much, much larger tragedy.
> but one upside is that it gives us room to rejoin as a proper member, using the Euro, in Schengen, etc.
Can't wait.
> Or, maybe just Scotland and NI, and Wales and England can become independent.
England will put up a ton of resistance before allowing that to happen.
Yes, sorry I did not mean to give the impression that that was a major thing, just one more item that I've seen people use in creative ways. But obviously it's just a tiny footnote in a much, much larger tragedy.
> but one upside is that it gives us room to rejoin as a proper member, using the Euro, in Schengen, etc.
Can't wait.
> Or, maybe just Scotland and NI, and Wales and England can become independent.
England will put up a ton of resistance before allowing that to happen.
They’re not really manufactured for Japanese highways either.
Though Japanese highways go marginally slower, 60mph is pushing the poor kei to it’s limits.
Lets just say I don’t enjoy sitting in a kei truck that’s attempting to do maximum speed.
Though Japanese highways go marginally slower, 60mph is pushing the poor kei to it’s limits.
Lets just say I don’t enjoy sitting in a kei truck that’s attempting to do maximum speed.
The whole point of the kei form factor is different parking rules in dense, sometimes cramped Japanese cities. Due to the small footprint, they are allowed to park in more places.
These are urban vehicles, not intended for highways, except in a pinch.
These are urban vehicles, not intended for highways, except in a pinch.
There’s no separate parking laws for Kei cars, just relaxed legal processes and taxes. You still can’t park overnight on streets.
Close but no cigar.
The real reason is because everything is small in Japan due to a lack of absolute space. Remember, the place is a god damn island nation with mountains for its interior.
Roads are narrow, particularly in the countryside and especially if we're talking about roads crisscrossing between farms and rice paddies. Normal sized cars quite literally don't fit, much less normal sized trucks.
Consequently, out in the towns and cities you see far more normal sized cars because the roads are wider.
The real reason is because everything is small in Japan due to a lack of absolute space. Remember, the place is a god damn island nation with mountains for its interior.
Roads are narrow, particularly in the countryside and especially if we're talking about roads crisscrossing between farms and rice paddies. Normal sized cars quite literally don't fit, much less normal sized trucks.
Consequently, out in the towns and cities you see far more normal sized cars because the roads are wider.
Who needs a cigar when one could read Wikipedia first?
> In most rural areas they are also exempted from the requirement to certify that adequate parking is available for the vehicle
Kei cars have a number of prescribed limitations (yes, because space is at a premium, but so is / was fuel, metal, etc), and even have special number plates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
Also, there are designated parking spots for them where other cars won't fit:
> Some places in the parking lots are smaller than others and usually painted with the character “軽自動車” or just “軽”. These spaces are reserved for the small “kei” cars
https://japantravelplanning.com/car-parking-in-japan/
> In most rural areas they are also exempted from the requirement to certify that adequate parking is available for the vehicle
Kei cars have a number of prescribed limitations (yes, because space is at a premium, but so is / was fuel, metal, etc), and even have special number plates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car
Also, there are designated parking spots for them where other cars won't fit:
> Some places in the parking lots are smaller than others and usually painted with the character “軽自動車” or just “軽”. These spaces are reserved for the small “kei” cars
https://japantravelplanning.com/car-parking-in-japan/
[deleted]
Kei trucks are slow but there are some kei cars that are anything but. I had a first gen Daihatsu Copen that was pretty zippy for such a tiny vehicle.
Neither. There's an association of state DMV/RMV heads, and they have apparently decided that we shouldn't have these.
A lot of state RMVs are starting to refuse to register these vehicles, and that's why you often see them being sold for very cheap.
A lot of state RMVs are starting to refuse to register these vehicles, and that's why you often see them being sold for very cheap.
Those as well as emissions reasons.
Curious, if you were to drive one into Oregon, what would happen?
With the usual caveats (IANAL, etc), it would be fine. I think. So far as I know, most equipment-related regulations on cars follow the registration. Driving behavior, will be localized (e.g. double towing is still forbidden in Oregon even if you are titled and registered in California). I'm not aware of any Oregon regulation that says you can't drive a Kei car here, just that you won't be able to title & register it.
CAFE regulations basically make it so no manufacturer will touch that market. The yearly MPG requirements for vehicle manufacturers are heavily influenced by the vehicle size (track width and wheelbase). Bigger footprint means lower MPG target, that's why every new truck now is massive, and they don't make small trucks anymore like the old Tacomas and Rangers.
If by "they are absolutely everywhere" you mean "I've seen one of them in 25 years of living here", then I agree.
Forgetting that BC exists entirely. If you search "Kei" on Craigslist Vancouver, there's currently 37 postings, and they're constantly being imported here. I see them in Washington as well, although those may be Canadians just visiting.
A notable difference being in Canada you can import vehicles at 15 years old rather than 25. There is a decent flipping trade in Vancouver to import JDM vehicles while they are Canadian eligible but not US, hang on to them for a while, then sell them south once the 25 years are up.
> Forgetting that BC exists entirely.
I mean, you forgot that the PNW outside BC exists, so it seems fair.
I mean, you forgot that the PNW outside BC exists, so it seems fair.
At least in some parts of Seattle, you do see them a lot. In my neighborhood of Ballard, for instance, I can go for a walk and see three of them parked on the street.
We must be neighbors (or close to it) because I think I know exactly where you're talking about.
It probably varies quite a bit by which part of the PNW we're talking about. They're exceedingly rare in Oregon (and I'd bet they're visitors from Washington or BC), I haven't seen one in many years.
They seem to be popular in rural areas of Western Washington. I saw several while visiting the San Juan Islands last year, and have spotted them fairly frequently on the Olympic Peninsula - along with other fellow RHD Japanese imports like the Mitsubishi Delica and Nissan Skyline.
I enough of those in Toronto right in the area where I live
I saw one yesterday in skagit valley
They tend to be absolutely horrid when it comes to crash safety.
This goes to show just how superficial and backwards the American car industry is. You can do the job of a $50,000 pickup using a machine that is half the size of a Honda Civic, costs $10,000 new, gets 40 MPG, fits in any parking spot, is easy to load, and sells for around $10,000 new. But they look weak and girly.
Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas.
Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas.
> You can do the job of a $50,000 pickup...
I would say that a non insignificant portion of pickup truck owners, don't even need a pick up truck to begin with.
I would say that a non insignificant portion of pickup truck owners, don't even need a pick up truck to begin with.
I think that’s why big shared fleets will never really take off. People don’t seem to mind spending a lot more on their vehicle than what they really need to.
People spend $50k because they want that truck, not because they need it.
People spend $50k because they want that truck, not because they need it.
Cars are pretty much the defacto status item in the US, so it makes sense for people to want to "fake it til they make it."
Big shared fleets of cars seems like a great idea until you end up with the one with the backseat covered in day old vomit… in July
Same reason many people buy Teslas
To be fair, the first gen Nissan Leaf was a piece of crap though.
It was cheaper too.
The cheapest Model S you could buy back in 2012 was ~$70,000, while the Leaf started at half of that in 2010, ~$35,000.
The cheapest Model S you could buy back in 2012 was ~$70,000, while the Leaf started at half of that in 2010, ~$35,000.
there is no comparison between these cars, they're vastly different
people spend $50k because they have to have a car to get around, drive kids, get to work, etc. If they're stuck with needing a car, they have too much ego for it to be shitty, so they spend a lot. I think a lot of these people would rather ride share if it was cheaper and it wouldn't be much of a hit to their pride
Riding around in a sedan is so undignified. Please point me to the $50k trucks...I need a deal.
It's because, as the old saying goes, we fight wars with the army we have rather than the army we want.
We buy cars that provide more than our needs so we aren't left needing in case we come across something that goes beyond our expectations.
Always buying just what is necessary right now in a bid to be efficient leaves no margin for error and will end up being inefficient in the long run.
I don't deny that driving a Ford F-350 is great in its own right, though. That thing screams 'Murica, and all the better if it gets us out of an unexpected rut every so often.
We buy cars that provide more than our needs so we aren't left needing in case we come across something that goes beyond our expectations.
Always buying just what is necessary right now in a bid to be efficient leaves no margin for error and will end up being inefficient in the long run.
I don't deny that driving a Ford F-350 is great in its own right, though. That thing screams 'Murica, and all the better if it gets us out of an unexpected rut every so often.
No, it's because trucks got marketed and sold as a symbol since the margins are much higher for automakers.
People got by just fine with sedans. Most folks who own a giant pickup drive it in the exact same way as a Honda Civic and have no actual need for a pickup. It's very apparent in how tall these vehicles are now. If you are actually hauling goods, you don't want clearance to be that high.
People got by just fine with sedans. Most folks who own a giant pickup drive it in the exact same way as a Honda Civic and have no actual need for a pickup. It's very apparent in how tall these vehicles are now. If you are actually hauling goods, you don't want clearance to be that high.
I love Jim Gaffigans bit on this:
"*I dont even own a car - but everyone I know who has a pickup truck is never picking up ANYTHING...
Thats like me walking around with a large empty suitcase.
'OH... Are you going on a trip??'
'No, but I look like someone who *COULD*'
"*I dont even own a car - but everyone I know who has a pickup truck is never picking up ANYTHING...
Thats like me walking around with a large empty suitcase.
'OH... Are you going on a trip??'
'No, but I look like someone who *COULD*'
>But they look weak and girly.
If you've read the article, you'd see its because these vehicles don't conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
If you've read the article, you'd see its because these vehicles don't conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
A motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old can be lawfully imported into the U.S. without regard to whether it complies with all applicable FMVSS. Such a vehicle would be entered under Box 1 on the HS-7 Declaration form to be given to Customs at the time of importation. If you wish to see that form, you may download a copy from our website at nhtsa.gov/importing-vehicle. You should note that the 25 year period runs from the date of the vehicle's manufacture. If the date of manufacture is not identified on a label permanently affixed to the vehicle by its original manufacturer, to establish the age of the vehicle, you should have documentation available such as an invoice showing the date the vehicle was first sold or a registration document showing that the vehicle was registered at least 25 years ago. Absent such information, a statement from a recognized vehicle historical society identifying the age of the vehicle could be used.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/importing-vehicle/importation-and-cert....
https://www.nhtsa.gov/importing-vehicle/importation-and-cert....
Nor EPA emissions regulations.
Untrue. Any vehicle that is more than 25 years is exempted from the FMVSS.
Yes, so that's why these can only be bought used.
Plus, looking girly is totally different than looking small.
They look like utility vehicles to me, but then again I had a miata and a grom...
They look like utility vehicles to me, but then again I had a miata and a grom...
So long as you never get in a car crash. That's what's holding me back.
Pure speculation on my part, but from having ridden in one of these Kei trucks (and lots of US trucks): I wouldn't be surprised if American-style trucks get in and cause more accidents per mile, both because of their lesser visibility and weaker cultural norms around speeding and rules of the road ("biggest car wins").
(This doesn't make Kei trucks safer, but it might have the same paradoxical effect as helmets on cyclists[1].)
[1]: https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/bike-helmets-cyclist-de...
(This doesn't make Kei trucks safer, but it might have the same paradoxical effect as helmets on cyclists[1].)
[1]: https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/bike-helmets-cyclist-de...
American-style trucks get in and cause more accidents per mile
They don't. I used to own an F-350 for a race team and when I sold it for a Corolla I had a long argument with my insurance agent as to why the Corolla was going to cost me more to insure.
Despite their outrageous cost to own (which you would think would primarily be the driver of insurance fees), apparently large trucks are both stolen much less and get in fewer accidents due to their size. Hard to argue with the insurance company on the stats there.
They don't. I used to own an F-350 for a race team and when I sold it for a Corolla I had a long argument with my insurance agent as to why the Corolla was going to cost me more to insure.
Despite their outrageous cost to own (which you would think would primarily be the driver of insurance fees), apparently large trucks are both stolen much less and get in fewer accidents due to their size. Hard to argue with the insurance company on the stats there.
I think we're talking about different things: I was talking about the physical risk to the humans inside and outside of the truck, not the cost of insuring the truck. Trucks can simultaneously be involved in fewer non-injury accidents (meaning preferable insurance terms for you) and be involved in more injurious accidents/produce worse health outcomes.
IIHS and NHTSA have figures that are generally consistent with my speculation[1]:
1. Overall car occupant deaths have nearly halved since 1975, but have risen by 25% in the pickup category.
2. Trucks have fewer rollover accidents as a category, but those rollovers that do occur make up a far larger percentage of occupant deaths.
3. Consistent with (2), truck drivers appear to drive without seatbelts more often than other categories do (based on overall incidence in accidents), and suffer higher fatalities as a result.
[1]: https://driving-tests.org/driving-statistics/
IIHS and NHTSA have figures that are generally consistent with my speculation[1]:
1. Overall car occupant deaths have nearly halved since 1975, but have risen by 25% in the pickup category.
2. Trucks have fewer rollover accidents as a category, but those rollovers that do occur make up a far larger percentage of occupant deaths.
3. Consistent with (2), truck drivers appear to drive without seatbelts more often than other categories do (based on overall incidence in accidents), and suffer higher fatalities as a result.
[1]: https://driving-tests.org/driving-statistics/
[deleted]
>I switched providers anyway and still saved on the Corolla, in case you were wondering.
This is the correct solution with auto insurance in America. You should never stay with the same company more than 3-5 years, just like you should never stay at the same job longer than that. Loyalty is penalized in America, and you can get a better deal by jumping ship. Always shop around for better rates when your auto insurance policy is due for renewal.
This is the correct solution with auto insurance in America. You should never stay with the same company more than 3-5 years, just like you should never stay at the same job longer than that. Loyalty is penalized in America, and you can get a better deal by jumping ship. Always shop around for better rates when your auto insurance policy is due for renewal.
> You can do the job of a $50,000 pickup using a machine that is half the size of a Honda Civic
You can't, though: “half-ton” pickups start much lower than $50k and near universally have a 1,500+ lb cargo capacity (the half-ton designation is historical and almost never actually meant what it seems to, quater-ton is even worse.)
Seems more competitive with the $27K Hyundai Santa Cruz, with similar cargo capacity (by weight), 40 MPG mileage, US new vehicle standards compliance, but trading off a shorter bed length for a second row of seating.
You can't, though: “half-ton” pickups start much lower than $50k and near universally have a 1,500+ lb cargo capacity (the half-ton designation is historical and almost never actually meant what it seems to, quater-ton is even worse.)
Seems more competitive with the $27K Hyundai Santa Cruz, with similar cargo capacity (by weight), 40 MPG mileage, US new vehicle standards compliance, but trading off a shorter bed length for a second row of seating.
"“half-ton” pickups start much lower than $50k"
Where!? I just priced a few 2010 F-150s at $30-40k.
Where!? I just priced a few 2010 F-150s at $30-40k.
While doing less emissions related to ICEs.
It’s not even remotely as capable as a full size truck. Or a compact one for that matter.
Edit: Don't be grouchy and just downvote. If you really think a Kei truck with a 1000 pound payload and 60mph [optimistic] top speed is comparable to a full size pickup, explain why. It's the same payload as a Corolla, not a full size body-on-frame pickup. And even then, that completely ignores towing, which is a very common use case for full size trucks today. A Corolla would do -that- better, too.
Kei cars are neat, but be realistic.
Edit: Don't be grouchy and just downvote. If you really think a Kei truck with a 1000 pound payload and 60mph [optimistic] top speed is comparable to a full size pickup, explain why. It's the same payload as a Corolla, not a full size body-on-frame pickup. And even then, that completely ignores towing, which is a very common use case for full size trucks today. A Corolla would do -that- better, too.
Kei cars are neat, but be realistic.
Yeah but the point is that the vast majority of people buying full sized pickup trucks aren't actually using them for practical purposes, and it turns out that when something becomes a status symbol like that for so long the capabilities diverge from what people that aren't just buying it as a status symbol want.
> Yeah but the point is that the vast majority of people buying full sized pickup trucks aren't actually using them for practical purposes,
If they aren't, you can replace them with a cheaper, safer, more fuel efficient vehicle that meets US safety standards and is easier to maintain and register than a Kei, and probably at a comparable or far cheaper initial price than the Kei.
If they are using it for a practical purpose, you can't replace it with a Kei.
Either way, a Kei is probably the wrong choice for most US buyers.
(There are newer import-legal minitrucks that don't have the registration hassles, like Nissan Clipper, which makes the range of situations where the Kei makes a lot of sense outside of particular brand attachment even narrower.)
If they aren't, you can replace them with a cheaper, safer, more fuel efficient vehicle that meets US safety standards and is easier to maintain and register than a Kei, and probably at a comparable or far cheaper initial price than the Kei.
If they are using it for a practical purpose, you can't replace it with a Kei.
Either way, a Kei is probably the wrong choice for most US buyers.
(There are newer import-legal minitrucks that don't have the registration hassles, like Nissan Clipper, which makes the range of situations where the Kei makes a lot of sense outside of particular brand attachment even narrower.)
> a Kei is probably the wrong choice for most US buyers.
> There are newer import-legal minitrucks that don't have the registration hassles, like Nissan Clipper
I'm confused - the Nissan Clipper is a Kei truck/van. Kei isn't a brand, it's just a description of a specific style of car (low weight, engine size etc incentivized by the Japanese government).
> There are newer import-legal minitrucks that don't have the registration hassles, like Nissan Clipper
I'm confused - the Nissan Clipper is a Kei truck/van. Kei isn't a brand, it's just a description of a specific style of car (low weight, engine size etc incentivized by the Japanese government).
Panel vans. Like those 1.2L 3cyl Golf faced delivery vans. People need those. But that’s not a socially acceptable private possession, and a Kei is nowhere as humiliating thanks to novelty, so Kei sells.
>If they are using it for practical purpose, you can’t replace it with a Kei
Often people living on large properties and in rural areas have vehicles that never hit public roads, and Kei car class vehicles or their equivalent get used every single day. Just think about the logistics of living down a long road on 30 acres - getting the mail, taking garbage bins out, moving tools, water, animal feed, debris, etc. Large trucks don’t even fit through some gates and Polaris/atv/small vehicle is often the best solution.
Often people living on large properties and in rural areas have vehicles that never hit public roads, and Kei car class vehicles or their equivalent get used every single day. Just think about the logistics of living down a long road on 30 acres - getting the mail, taking garbage bins out, moving tools, water, animal feed, debris, etc. Large trucks don’t even fit through some gates and Polaris/atv/small vehicle is often the best solution.
Alternatively, you could get a vehicle like this and _not_ be concerned about what other people think about you. Or you could continue to fight imaginary battles against people who simply like something different than you.
I can't tow a boat with that...so please. Also, yes, vehicles are identity expressions in America. No way around that...just is what it is.
> You can do the job of a $50,000 pickup using a machine that is half the size of a Honda Civic
No you can’t
No you can’t
For what the average person uses their $50k pickup for, you most certainly can. Do you really imagine most pickup trucks in the US are hauling bricks on a dirt road up the side of mountains?
You think a Kei truck can't make it up a mountain with a load of bricks? It may not be the fastest, and the biggest load of bricks it can haul is gonna be smaller, but let's not pretend a Kei truck can't go to Home Depot and back again with a decent amount of stuff. Like smaller trucks in the US, like the Ford Ranger or Chevy S10, they do just fine if you don't abuse them. If you do, giant 2-ton trucks don't last either.
No, I imagine the average person in the U.S. is using their truck to drive to and from their office job and taking their kids to and from school. And for that these tiny trucks obviously would not work.
I'm glad the truck bed is coming handy when dropping the kids to school. Sure makes up for all the kids getting crushed by big cars (1)
(1) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar...
(1) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-ar...
Sounds like they should be using a sedan, station wagon, or compact SUV
[deleted]
You said it yourself. People aren’t buying trucks for their function. They aren’t hauling bricks up mountain roads. So if it’s not about function, then it’s about something else and a Kei truck might not fill that role.
It’s like people who spend thousands of dollars on a wristwatch. They don’t do that because they need to know what time it is.
It’s like people who spend thousands of dollars on a wristwatch. They don’t do that because they need to know what time it is.
FWIIW, I would’t be shocked to find out these have worse emissions.
(To be clear, The EPA said this as well and it was part of the original crackdown.)
They can not replace new pickup truck. A bicycle doesn't replace a motorcycle just because it has two wheels and you can put groceries on it.
It can certainly replace _some_ pickup trucks in the same way that there is overlap between a motorcycle and bicycle for _some_ purposes.
I would happily buy a kei truck, but something like an older Toyota Tacoma is my best bet right now.
I would happily buy a kei truck, but something like an older Toyota Tacoma is my best bet right now.
The real equivalent of a kei truck in the US I think is a minivan. I see a lot of blue collar workers that use an old beater minivan as a work truck basically. Its an easy engine and platform to work on; something like a honda odyssey shares parts with a civic and most anything else they made in the same era. There is a ton of space when you take out the seats, that locks up unlike a truck bed. The floor is a lot lower than a truck bed which makes it easy to load stuff in and out. You get much better gas mileage than most commercial van platforms. They sell for a few thousand dollars in decent shape used and hold their value.
My kei truck is actually a replacement for my Tacoma (had to sell it because it was starting to fall apart). I wanted something to fill the gap. It's always nice to have a truck bed available for hauling random stuff, but it was during the used car boom and Tacomas seem to hold their value (everything was expensive). Not since I first got my license have I had so much fun driving. It's like a right-hand drive, manual transmission go-kart.
I've hauled bikes, lumber, furniture, rocks and soil for landscaping. Unfortunately, it's no good on the highway, so long distances are out, and your knees are the crumple zone, so I drive the same way I bike...hyper-vigilant and try to anticipate danger. Still worth it.
Not trying to persuade you, I just love to talk about my truck!
I've hauled bikes, lumber, furniture, rocks and soil for landscaping. Unfortunately, it's no good on the highway, so long distances are out, and your knees are the crumple zone, so I drive the same way I bike...hyper-vigilant and try to anticipate danger. Still worth it.
Not trying to persuade you, I just love to talk about my truck!
N=1, moved into my current home a few years ago and it has a long and steep hill for a driveway (house is downhill from the street). I bought an early-00's pickup truck thinking I'd use it a lot more than I have. It's languishing in the driveway and will probably go up for sale soon.
If I could reasonably get and register a Kei truck in my state it would be the perfect replacement, literally all I need is some hauling space for big trash cans, and the occasional Home Depot run.
If they made them electric I'd already be getting one!
If I could reasonably get and register a Kei truck in my state it would be the perfect replacement, literally all I need is some hauling space for big trash cans, and the occasional Home Depot run.
If they made them electric I'd already be getting one!
...and aren't allowed on a highway or freeway.
They're useless for most consumers.
They're useless for most consumers.
I would argue that this form factor could absolutely replace the vast majority of trucks use for delivery and contractor duties in many cities and towns in the US.
Edit: flat bed pickup trucks that is, not lorries.
Edit: flat bed pickup trucks that is, not lorries.
They already have the form factor, it’s called a Toyota Tacoma and Ford Ranger. They are bigger than Kei trucks because they have actual safety features.
They are bigger because they need to house 200HP+ engines, which are, in most cases, unnecessary.
Cars and trucks 25 years ago had 200HP+ engines with much smaller bodies.
Cars nowadays are larger for improved comfort, not because of safety features. Larger cars aren't inherently safer. Modern safety features, such as airbags, crumple zones, etc., have been around for over twenty years now, but cars have gotten larger.
Regardless, the comparison was between Kei trucks and pickup trucks.
Regardless, the comparison was between Kei trucks and pickup trucks.
Cars are in fact larger partially due to advanced safety features, in particular doors, pillars etc. have gotten a lot thicker over the last 25 years.
> Larger cars aren't inherently safer.
Yes they are, you're probably better off in a crash without a seatbelt in a bus than in the highly safety rated mini the bus crashes into. Newton matters.
> Larger cars aren't inherently safer.
Yes they are, you're probably better off in a crash without a seatbelt in a bus than in the highly safety rated mini the bus crashes into. Newton matters.
> Cars are in fact larger partially due to advanced safety features, in particular doors, pillars etc. have gotten a lot thicker over the last 25 years.
I would like to see a citation on this. Car doors have gotten larger partly because there is so much more stuff going on there than 20-30 years ago, mostly a bunch of new electronics. They are also larger because, well, the cars are larger.
> ... you're probably better off in a crash without a seatbelt in a bus than in the highly safety rated mini the bus crashes into.
This is obviously not a fair comparison. I would be safer in a tank as well. Fact is, a current generation Toyota Camry is effectively safer than an early 2000s F-150.
I would like to see a citation on this. Car doors have gotten larger partly because there is so much more stuff going on there than 20-30 years ago, mostly a bunch of new electronics. They are also larger because, well, the cars are larger.
> ... you're probably better off in a crash without a seatbelt in a bus than in the highly safety rated mini the bus crashes into.
This is obviously not a fair comparison. I would be safer in a tank as well. Fact is, a current generation Toyota Camry is effectively safer than an early 2000s F-150.
> I would like to see a citation on this.
E.g. [1] has a decent overview of the side impact saga for the Euro NCAP since 1997. I'm less familiar with how the American version has kept up.
In any case most mass market American cars target the Euro NCAP's safety tests, so it affects car design across the pond too.
> [...]mostly a bunch of new electronics.
I can't think of any electronics in doors than weren't there in 1995.
Powered windows have gotten more common, but if it weren't for safety considerations the thickness of doors should have reduced since then, as all the electronics involved are smaller now.
> Fact is, a current generation Toyota Camry is effectively safer than an early 2000s F-150.
Probably, but some quick internet searching reveals that if you add the weight of one person to the modern Camry it's probably heavier than the 2000s F-150, or thereabouts.
What I was referring to is that crash safety tests don't account for crashes between differently sized vehicles.
That's probably intentional, as regulators don't want to cause an arms race towards ever bigger cars.
1. https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/53189/19-0278-the-development...
E.g. [1] has a decent overview of the side impact saga for the Euro NCAP since 1997. I'm less familiar with how the American version has kept up.
In any case most mass market American cars target the Euro NCAP's safety tests, so it affects car design across the pond too.
> [...]mostly a bunch of new electronics.
I can't think of any electronics in doors than weren't there in 1995.
Powered windows have gotten more common, but if it weren't for safety considerations the thickness of doors should have reduced since then, as all the electronics involved are smaller now.
> Fact is, a current generation Toyota Camry is effectively safer than an early 2000s F-150.
Probably, but some quick internet searching reveals that if you add the weight of one person to the modern Camry it's probably heavier than the 2000s F-150, or thereabouts.
What I was referring to is that crash safety tests don't account for crashes between differently sized vehicles.
That's probably intentional, as regulators don't want to cause an arms race towards ever bigger cars.
1. https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/53189/19-0278-the-development...
> I can't think of any electronics in doors than weren't there in 1995.
Electronic locks, speakers, electronic bits of heated mirrors, airbags, etc. were absolutely not that common in the average 90s car.
Also, car dimensions are generally larger because we ourselves have become larger and taller. This becomes exceedingly obvious when comparing European cars in the past 40 years. If we look at the last 15 years, the trend is to make larger, more spacious cars, to the point where most firms are betting on SUVs over sedans.
> What I was referring to is that crash safety tests don't account for crashes between differently sized vehicles.
They do, though. What would be the point of testing a car safety measures only against cars of its size? In fact, there are plenty of videos out there of crash tests between sedans and trucks.
> That's probably intentional, as regulators don't want to cause an arms race towards ever bigger cars.
Uh? Manufacturers have been steadily increasing the size of cars in the past 20 years. Each Camry generation is larger than the previous one, and has nothing to do with regulators, it’s just that buyers want spacious cars.
Electronic locks, speakers, electronic bits of heated mirrors, airbags, etc. were absolutely not that common in the average 90s car.
Also, car dimensions are generally larger because we ourselves have become larger and taller. This becomes exceedingly obvious when comparing European cars in the past 40 years. If we look at the last 15 years, the trend is to make larger, more spacious cars, to the point where most firms are betting on SUVs over sedans.
> What I was referring to is that crash safety tests don't account for crashes between differently sized vehicles.
They do, though. What would be the point of testing a car safety measures only against cars of its size? In fact, there are plenty of videos out there of crash tests between sedans and trucks.
> That's probably intentional, as regulators don't want to cause an arms race towards ever bigger cars.
Uh? Manufacturers have been steadily increasing the size of cars in the past 20 years. Each Camry generation is larger than the previous one, and has nothing to do with regulators, it’s just that buyers want spacious cars.
> ... were absolutely not that common in the average 90s car.
Yes, but we're not talking about what's more common, but about how recent regulatory changes affected car design.
You can look up luxury models of mid or late 90s cars, and they had all those features. Now look at the same models today.
> car dimensions are generally larger because we ourselves have become larger and taller.
This is mostly due to changed regulations. Look at e.g. a 1980 model of a Toyota Corolla:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corolla_(E70)
If you wanted to make a car with the same outside dimensions today you could barely cram two people in it, due to all the mandatory crumple zones etc.
Of course consumer demand is also part of it, but in some cases car manufacturers are still making 1980s design cars today (e.g. the 79 series Toyota land cruiser), they're just outlawed in Europe due to safety, pollution etc. regulations.
> In fact, there are plenty of videos out there of crash tests between sedans and trucks.
I'm talking about official safety ratings, e.g. this in the Euro NCAP:
https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
Although as that page explains the particular bias I had in mind was "fixed" in 2020, now it's a 1400 kg mobile trolley, so heavier cars are tested somewhat more realistically.
Yes, but we're not talking about what's more common, but about how recent regulatory changes affected car design.
You can look up luxury models of mid or late 90s cars, and they had all those features. Now look at the same models today.
> car dimensions are generally larger because we ourselves have become larger and taller.
This is mostly due to changed regulations. Look at e.g. a 1980 model of a Toyota Corolla:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corolla_(E70)
If you wanted to make a car with the same outside dimensions today you could barely cram two people in it, due to all the mandatory crumple zones etc.
Of course consumer demand is also part of it, but in some cases car manufacturers are still making 1980s design cars today (e.g. the 79 series Toyota land cruiser), they're just outlawed in Europe due to safety, pollution etc. regulations.
> In fact, there are plenty of videos out there of crash tests between sedans and trucks.
I'm talking about official safety ratings, e.g. this in the Euro NCAP:
https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-expla...
Although as that page explains the particular bias I had in mind was "fixed" in 2020, now it's a 1400 kg mobile trolley, so heavier cars are tested somewhat more realistically.
Also automobile engines tend to have vastly more horsepower for their size now than they did 25 years ago.
My Ford Ranger has 143 HP, thank you very much.
The size being the safety feature, and thus a danger to other vehicles on the road
The difficulties inherent in this and the simplicity of the product itself make me wonder if there's some car equivalent of the "80% lower" of the weapons industry.
Some kind of partially assembled new Kei truck that counts as "car parts" during import, and can then be assembled to create a "kit car". The kit car process is almost equally onerous, but at least you could get a new car on the other end.
Some kind of partially assembled new Kei truck that counts as "car parts" during import, and can then be assembled to create a "kit car". The kit car process is almost equally onerous, but at least you could get a new car on the other end.
US restrictions on vehicle imports seem very odd from a British perspective.
Over here, we can freely import pretty much anything. If it's more than 10 years old, you just register it. If it's less than 10 years old, you can still bring it in as a personal import, but it'll need to pass a slightly enhanced version of the normal annual inspection. It's a point of principle that any vehicle that passes inspection should be road legal, hence oddities like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paIGBOlkQr0
Because we're a right-hand-drive country, Japanese imports are commonplace. If you want a Kei car or a JDM-only luxury minivan, you can just have one. That taken-for-granted freedom gives me a certain degree of empathy for the 2nd amendment lobby.
Over here, we can freely import pretty much anything. If it's more than 10 years old, you just register it. If it's less than 10 years old, you can still bring it in as a personal import, but it'll need to pass a slightly enhanced version of the normal annual inspection. It's a point of principle that any vehicle that passes inspection should be road legal, hence oddities like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paIGBOlkQr0
Because we're a right-hand-drive country, Japanese imports are commonplace. If you want a Kei car or a JDM-only luxury minivan, you can just have one. That taken-for-granted freedom gives me a certain degree of empathy for the 2nd amendment lobby.
You can have lots of weird cars like that in the US too, but only as long as you START with a normal car and then mess with it. Most states don't have anything like the MOT (or if they do, they only check emissions and nothing to do with safety), so once the car is originally registered as a VW Golf or whatever, what you do with it after that is your own business.
As is typical with US regulation, it's a "worst of all worlds" hodgepodge that makes no logical sense.
As is typical with US regulation, it's a "worst of all worlds" hodgepodge that makes no logical sense.
A quick Google shows that only 15 states have vehicle inspections. The concept seems completely foreign (and a waste of time?) to me.
Living in Ohio (no inspection "rust belt" state), I saw a minivan's axle pop loose ahead of me on the highway, which sent it into the concrete barrier pretty much instantly. Perhaps you don't have rust issues where you live, but requiring some minimum mechanical function to register a car should be everywhere in my opinion. Generally inspections are either mechanical/safety or emissions. Emissions are based on the car model in every state I've lived in, so as long as you don't modify your car to blow smoke it'll pass. Mechanical inspections are to make sure there's no major rust, the brakes work, the lights work, tires aren't bald, etc.
The UK has less than half as many road deaths than the US, even after factoring in the difference in miles driven per year. Annual inspection is one of the reasons for that.
There are some perfectly reasonable arguments against the cost-effectiveness of mandatory vehicle inspection, but I have some doubts about the validity of those arguments. Road safety and traffic law enforcement involve a lot of complex interrelated factors; Creating a culture of road safety is difficult to distil into discrete interventions.
There's a libertarian argument that driving a car with bald tires is a matter of individual liberty, but obviously that's a vastly broader argument than the question of mandatory inspection. If you're going to have laws against driving a car with bald tires, it's less onerous and more effective to primarily enforce those laws through administrative rather than criminal justice mechanisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
There are some perfectly reasonable arguments against the cost-effectiveness of mandatory vehicle inspection, but I have some doubts about the validity of those arguments. Road safety and traffic law enforcement involve a lot of complex interrelated factors; Creating a culture of road safety is difficult to distil into discrete interventions.
There's a libertarian argument that driving a car with bald tires is a matter of individual liberty, but obviously that's a vastly broader argument than the question of mandatory inspection. If you're going to have laws against driving a car with bald tires, it's less onerous and more effective to primarily enforce those laws through administrative rather than criminal justice mechanisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Not having vehicle inspections is a concept that's completely foreign to European me. It's literally letting people very lightly educated in how to operate heavy machinery operate heavy machinery that at one (long gone) point probably worked as it should.
Unfortunately - that's the only way to force some drivers to get their car brakes fixed.
Exported used car from Japan is considered to good quality, that's partially thanks to vehicle inspection system per 1/2 year.
If assembling your own car in the US was as easy as assembling a gun, we'd all be assembling cars on our sixteenth birthday.
We have the right to own a gun, but in most of the US owning a car is a necessity. There is some route available in most states but it's incredibly cumbersome compared to something like making your own gun.
We have the right to own a gun, but in most of the US owning a car is a necessity. There is some route available in most states but it's incredibly cumbersome compared to something like making your own gun.
If cars had been as popular as guns when the U.S. Bill of Rights was written, then such a right might have been included.
Hypothetically, "Motorized transportation, being necessary to the mobility of a free State, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed."
Imagine the vehicles we would have. For one thing, the impossible-to-meet CAFE standards, which make it economically infeasible to sell compact pickup trucks in the U.S., would probably have been declared unconstitutional. On the other hand, laws requiring seatbelts and airbags probably would have also been unconstitutional.
Hypothetically, "Motorized transportation, being necessary to the mobility of a free State, the right of the people to keep and drive automobiles shall not be infringed."
Imagine the vehicles we would have. For one thing, the impossible-to-meet CAFE standards, which make it economically infeasible to sell compact pickup trucks in the U.S., would probably have been declared unconstitutional. On the other hand, laws requiring seatbelts and airbags probably would have also been unconstitutional.
It's worth noting that freedom of transit and use of public ways (literally the original "right of way") is such an ancient and obvious part of common law that the Framers didn't deign it necessary to include it as an explicit right, instead relegating it with "the rest of them" in the Ninth Amendment.
While that sounds good, I don't really see how it is relevant? You can be detained in the US just for being near the border. Which by the way includes the entire state of Florida, despite it not sharing a land border with any other nations.
Your example is quit fitting given that it's another clear abrogation of ancient rights, specifically the right not to be arbitrarily detained.
You have the kind of opposite due to the "Chicken tax". There is a 25% tariffs on light duty trucks and vans. SO, they are shipped to the US configured as passenger vehicles and then stripped after arriving in the US to a cargo configuration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax#Circumventing_the_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax#Circumventing_the_...
The difficulty is that this idea is not new and the regulations are written with that in mind.
Chicken tax trucks have entered the chat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
For a while Ford was importing Turkey manufactured small vans with seats in the back as passenger vehicles, immediately un-bolting and shredding the seats after they'd arrived at the US port, and selling them for their real intended purpose (small electrical/telecom/plumbing/other trades services vans).
There's still a huge amount of regulation before those trucks get onto the road. Just trying to import a bag of parts and then reassembling in the US while claiming it's a kit car is the oldest trick in the book. It's an instant trip to the crusher every time.
I went back and forth on the idea of sharing such a negative take here, but... here goes.
> You'll need to find a truck that is at least 25 years old. In the US, cars more youthful than that must comply with FMVSS (safety standards).
> No air bags, [...] power steering, or crumple zones.
I feel like this sort of thing is a fantastic illustration of the irresponsible level which most drivers (in the US at least; can't speak to other countries) feel that they are just so so good at driving that they believe all these safety features are fine to go without.
Sure, this is presumably not your sole vehicle or daily driver. And sure, you're not going to be taking one of these on a 65mph highway. But a 30mph head-on collision with another vehicle will almost certainly kill you in one of these trucks. And I know if I was the driver of the other vehicle, and survived, even if I wasn't the one at fault, I'd probably need years of expensive therapy to get past it all.
The thing that boggles my mind his how this 25-year-old grandfathering thing works. I think it's totally fair to allow old vehicles on the road that may not comply with today's standards, but did comply when they were originally made and titled (in the US). But there's no good reason we need to allow people to import old, unsafe vehicles like this.
> You'll need to find a truck that is at least 25 years old. In the US, cars more youthful than that must comply with FMVSS (safety standards).
> No air bags, [...] power steering, or crumple zones.
I feel like this sort of thing is a fantastic illustration of the irresponsible level which most drivers (in the US at least; can't speak to other countries) feel that they are just so so good at driving that they believe all these safety features are fine to go without.
Sure, this is presumably not your sole vehicle or daily driver. And sure, you're not going to be taking one of these on a 65mph highway. But a 30mph head-on collision with another vehicle will almost certainly kill you in one of these trucks. And I know if I was the driver of the other vehicle, and survived, even if I wasn't the one at fault, I'd probably need years of expensive therapy to get past it all.
The thing that boggles my mind his how this 25-year-old grandfathering thing works. I think it's totally fair to allow old vehicles on the road that may not comply with today's standards, but did comply when they were originally made and titled (in the US). But there's no good reason we need to allow people to import old, unsafe vehicles like this.
> The thing that boggles my mind his how this 25-year-old grandfathering thing works. I think it's totally fair to allow old vehicles on the road that may not comply with today's standards, but did comply when they were originally made and titled (in the US). But there's no good reason we need to allow people to import old, unsafe vehicles like this.
If safety was a primary concern for U.S. regulators, large consumer SUVs and trucks would not exist in their current form. As of ~2019 (the last such study I know of) trucks killed occupants of other vehicles at 2.5x the rate of cars and "SUVs" (an increasingly useless category as it includes everything from small unibody crossovers to enormous body-on-frame Canyonero-style monstrosities). I am not aware of any comparable headline figure for how pedestrians fare against them but I would put money on their pedestrian safety performance also being atrocious.
They are quite literally an atrocity against the American people, a public health hazard of the first order, and our regulators evidently do not give one single shit.
Through that lens the opinion you've expressed here—that people should not be allowed to drive cars that make them more unsafe—is extremely ironic, because the semiliterate chuds who support the unrestrained escalation of larger and deadlier and larger and deadlier vehicles on public roads make the exact opposite "argument" as a justification of why they should be allowed: freedom, personal responsibility, etcetera. I elide the details because it's mad-libs anyway, not any kind of coherent position unless one discards the notion of a social contract entirely.
I'm not suggesting you yourself hold an opinion like that, but it seems a uniquely American dichotomy that one is not allowed to drive a car that makes oneself more likely to die, but there is absolutely no problem with driving a car that's several times more likely to kill somebody else.
If safety was a primary concern for U.S. regulators, large consumer SUVs and trucks would not exist in their current form. As of ~2019 (the last such study I know of) trucks killed occupants of other vehicles at 2.5x the rate of cars and "SUVs" (an increasingly useless category as it includes everything from small unibody crossovers to enormous body-on-frame Canyonero-style monstrosities). I am not aware of any comparable headline figure for how pedestrians fare against them but I would put money on their pedestrian safety performance also being atrocious.
They are quite literally an atrocity against the American people, a public health hazard of the first order, and our regulators evidently do not give one single shit.
Through that lens the opinion you've expressed here—that people should not be allowed to drive cars that make them more unsafe—is extremely ironic, because the semiliterate chuds who support the unrestrained escalation of larger and deadlier and larger and deadlier vehicles on public roads make the exact opposite "argument" as a justification of why they should be allowed: freedom, personal responsibility, etcetera. I elide the details because it's mad-libs anyway, not any kind of coherent position unless one discards the notion of a social contract entirely.
I'm not suggesting you yourself hold an opinion like that, but it seems a uniquely American dichotomy that one is not allowed to drive a car that makes oneself more likely to die, but there is absolutely no problem with driving a car that's several times more likely to kill somebody else.
> I am not aware of any comparable headline figure for how pedestrians fare against them but I would put money on their pedestrian safety performance
USA is world no1 at killing pedestrians. Most pedestrian deaths per mile driven of any country. 7000 pedestrians die in traffic collisions annually.
Freakonomics just started a 3-part series on this.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-the-u-s-so-good-at-k...
USA is world no1 at killing pedestrians. Most pedestrian deaths per mile driven of any country. 7000 pedestrians die in traffic collisions annually.
Freakonomics just started a 3-part series on this.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-the-u-s-so-good-at-k...
If I look at the numbers [1] I highly doubt the US is even in the top 50. It's probably just the most pedestrian deaths per mile driven of any country that reports pedestrian deaths per mile driven.
Edit: look good at the deaths per mile driven, most countries with horrible numbers in other columns don't have any data in that column which is why the USA ends up as 4th. Look at any other statistic and you'll see the USA is far from the worst.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic...
Edit: look good at the deaths per mile driven, most countries with horrible numbers in other columns don't have any data in that column which is why the USA ends up as 4th. Look at any other statistic and you'll see the USA is far from the worst.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic...
The comment you replied to claimed
> Most pedestrian deaths per mile driven of any country
You said
> If I look at the numbers [1] I highly doubt the US is even in the top 50
The table in the link [1] you shared, when sorted by deaths per mile driven, ranks the USA (2021 data) 5th in the world, with Mexico (2013 data) being 1st.
> Most pedestrian deaths per mile driven of any country
You said
> If I look at the numbers [1] I highly doubt the US is even in the top 50
The table in the link [1] you shared, when sorted by deaths per mile driven, ranks the USA (2021 data) 5th in the world, with Mexico (2013 data) being 1st.
Yes, but that's only because most countries with horrible numbers don't have any data in that column and end up at the bottom. If you sort by anything else the USA is far far from the worst country.
If you look at the numbers and compare it to say Poland or Germany you'd get 2x-4x higher death numbers for any metrics.
Also the fact US statistic per mile are so high, despise it being a big country where I'd imagine most miles were highway ones probably hides even higher rate of accidents in cities.
Also the fact US statistic per mile are so high, despise it being a big country where I'd imagine most miles were highway ones probably hides even higher rate of accidents in cities.
Yes, the numbers aren't great, especially if you compare to other developed countries. The claim was most pedestrians killed per mile driven of any country, and that's simply ridiculous.
For those who have not heard of the Canyonero reference -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_Jl5WFQkA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI_Jl5WFQkA
I think it might be a little more nuanced than that. I have a friend who's still alive today because he was driving a Lexus SUV when a Honda Accord blew through a red light and collided with him at speed. Should he downgrade his car so he's more vulnerable next time?
Why frame it as a downgrade? Bigger isn't necessarily better. Cars are a highly regulated product, with lots of testing that happens, and there are evolving standards. In a crash, I'd much rather be in a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and not a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air, watch this video for why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB6oefRKWmY.
Where the 2023 Honda Accord has a rating of "good"* from IIHS on the updated side impact test, and NHTSA's rating for the 2022 model for side crash is 5 stars** (2023 data not yet available), it seems entirely likely that your friend would also still be alive today if they were also in a Honda Accord. The arms race for bigger and bigger vehicles is just that - an arms race. I don't want to walk or drive in the world of Mad Max, where everyone drives semi-trucks and have spikes all over them to protect the inhabitants of a vehicle.
It should also be noted that bigger isn't automatically better. For the 2022 side impact test by IIHS, the Honda Passport, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Wrangler 4-door, Kia Telluride and Nissan Murano SUVs all received "marginal" ratings***.
Prior to 2011, SUVs weren't even tested for side impact ratings.
* https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/honda/accord-4-door-sed...
** https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2022/HONDA/ACCORD/4%252520DR/F...
*** https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/most-midsize-suvs-perform-w...
Where the 2023 Honda Accord has a rating of "good"* from IIHS on the updated side impact test, and NHTSA's rating for the 2022 model for side crash is 5 stars** (2023 data not yet available), it seems entirely likely that your friend would also still be alive today if they were also in a Honda Accord. The arms race for bigger and bigger vehicles is just that - an arms race. I don't want to walk or drive in the world of Mad Max, where everyone drives semi-trucks and have spikes all over them to protect the inhabitants of a vehicle.
It should also be noted that bigger isn't automatically better. For the 2022 side impact test by IIHS, the Honda Passport, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Wrangler 4-door, Kia Telluride and Nissan Murano SUVs all received "marginal" ratings***.
Prior to 2011, SUVs weren't even tested for side impact ratings.
* https://www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/honda/accord-4-door-sed...
** https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2022/HONDA/ACCORD/4%252520DR/F...
*** https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/most-midsize-suvs-perform-w...
Unfortunately weight _is_ generally a predictor of occupant safety.
IIHS says:
“Frontal crash test results can't be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes.… Given equivalent frontal ratings, the heavier of two vehicles usually offers better protection in real-world crashes.”
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests
IIHS says:
“Frontal crash test results can't be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes.… Given equivalent frontal ratings, the heavier of two vehicles usually offers better protection in real-world crashes.”
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests
Well if you ignore damage caused to the target you hit no wonder.
That doesn't really work in practice though.
I've seen the aftermath of a Renault Megane hitting a Ford Explorer, and it wasn't pretty. The Megane was a writeoff, with significant intrusion into the passenger area. The Explorer looked like it had been de-orbited rather than centre-punched by a small hatchback, with the bodywork in four pieces and parts scattered for about 100m. The occupants did not fare well, and indeed none of the small pieces of the occupants spread around fared well either.
I've seen the aftermath of a Renault Megane hitting a Ford Explorer, and it wasn't pretty. The Megane was a writeoff, with significant intrusion into the passenger area. The Explorer looked like it had been de-orbited rather than centre-punched by a small hatchback, with the bodywork in four pieces and parts scattered for about 100m. The occupants did not fare well, and indeed none of the small pieces of the occupants spread around fared well either.
I agree. My dad always told me that, in a hypothetical situation where I'm going to crash and I have a choice in the kind of car I'm driving, to always pick the bigger car than the other guy.
Bigger cars are safer, for better or worse. Those Ford F-350s will, in general, survive crashes and protect the occupants better than something like a Toyota Camry.
Bigger cars are safer, for better or worse. Those Ford F-350s will, in general, survive crashes and protect the occupants better than something like a Toyota Camry.
Hasn't this caused an arms race of sorts where these trucks get bigger and bigger to the point where now some models have worse visibility than enormous M1 Abrams tanks: https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
It's definitely one of the reasons cars in general have gotten bigger, you can't deny that better survivability in crashes is good marketing material. Trucks are just among the larger of them.
Yes, but it's only better survivability in two-car crashes, and it makes the overall survivability worse. The social cost is greater than the private benefit.
IOW, it's a market failure (externality).
IOW, it's a market failure (externality).
I don't remember the exact stats, but something like 30-50% of lethal crashes happen alone, without another vehicle involved, because drivers lose control of a vehicle.
If you hit a bridge pillar or drive off a cliff, it doesn't matter how heavy your vehicle is.
I'd for these types of crashes it's much better to have a small, nimble vehicle that is more stable and doesn't crash in the first place rather than a huge truck with poor grip that tips over if you corner too fast.
If you hit a bridge pillar or drive off a cliff, it doesn't matter how heavy your vehicle is.
I'd for these types of crashes it's much better to have a small, nimble vehicle that is more stable and doesn't crash in the first place rather than a huge truck with poor grip that tips over if you corner too fast.
It's this exact line of thinking that explains why there's an arms race going on - not just in larger vehicles, but a literal one where carrying a gun makes one person safer but almost everybody else around them less safe.
Well, unless you hit another F350.
With respect, this is a textbook example of anecdotal thinking.
What if your friend was still alive today because he was driving his lifted Dodge Ram 2500 when he ran a red light twelve beers deep and T-boned an Accord, his aftermarket steel bumper severing the B-pillar and decapitating all four occupants (mother, father, two daughters)? Would you still imply that his choice of vehicle was defensible because it increased his chances of surviving that collision?
Ideally humans would simply not drive, but that's not feasible in the world we currently live in, so everybody should be on a level playing field designed not only to evenly distribute risk but also to minimize it. Like I said in my original post, consumer pickups as they exist in America today are measurably incompatible with the public good.
What if your friend was still alive today because he was driving his lifted Dodge Ram 2500 when he ran a red light twelve beers deep and T-boned an Accord, his aftermarket steel bumper severing the B-pillar and decapitating all four occupants (mother, father, two daughters)? Would you still imply that his choice of vehicle was defensible because it increased his chances of surviving that collision?
Ideally humans would simply not drive, but that's not feasible in the world we currently live in, so everybody should be on a level playing field designed not only to evenly distribute risk but also to minimize it. Like I said in my original post, consumer pickups as they exist in America today are measurably incompatible with the public good.
Everyone should constantly buy a bigger car than what everyone else is buying. It's the only way to stay safe.
Not me I daily drive a GTK Boxer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_(armoured_fighting_vehic...)
(I don’t actually drive a gtk boxer but it’s the logical conclusion of this dumb trend).
(I don’t actually drive a gtk boxer but it’s the logical conclusion of this dumb trend).
If you reversed the vehicles the outcome would be the same. The size differential has to be massive for it to matter. Modern safety requirements are stringent and you wouldn't believe how much a small sedan can take in a crash.
The most important safety feature in a vehicle is performance, and SUVs (especially mid and full size) are outright worse, regardless of what your average American thinks.
The most important safety feature in a vehicle is performance, and SUVs (especially mid and full size) are outright worse, regardless of what your average American thinks.
> The most important safety feature in a vehicle is performance
Do you have a source for this? I'm honestly curious. In every near-miss I've had in traffic, the only performance that would have helped is braking performance. And I drive a Kei car as a sole family car. On long highway road trips.
Do you have a source for this? I'm honestly curious. In every near-miss I've had in traffic, the only performance that would have helped is braking performance. And I drive a Kei car as a sole family car. On long highway road trips.
My point of view came from personal experience, but it's encoded in all sorts of safety requirements concerning tires, brakes, suspension, etc.
Good handling is also very important for safety. SUVs before stability control are a perfect example of this.
Good handling is also very important for safety. SUVs before stability control are a perfect example of this.
Tragedy of the commons situation, only way out is through regulation
In general there are many way out.
Open source in IT area is one of the possible exist. Carbon tax is also market solution. …
How about producing one using e in USA. Or …
Regulation meant what and how … it may be necessary. It may need to over-regulate. And who regulate the regulator. Abd how about agency problem.
Mix solution … if it is an easy situation you may not know there is a problem usually.
Open source in IT area is one of the possible exist. Carbon tax is also market solution. …
How about producing one using e in USA. Or …
Regulation meant what and how … it may be necessary. It may need to over-regulate. And who regulate the regulator. Abd how about agency problem.
Mix solution … if it is an easy situation you may not know there is a problem usually.
Having driven these quite a bit, I think its important to understand that while they're not particularly safe, they don't _feel_ particularly safe. 25mph feels incredibly fast, sort of like riding a bike. I think it's far easier to drive 75mph in a small sedan and have a close call with a large truck, and not recognize the danger. I think this added caution likely mitigates lack of safety features at least somewhat.
I don't understand the anger and disdain from people about others potentially hurting themselves. The only thing I can think of is they are jealous of someone who doesn't have these sort of intrusive thoughts about safety all the time and how they get to do something cool like the OP every now and then.
Potentially hurting themselves only is okay: ride some extreme mountain bike, lift extreme weights, ski on risky slopes, consume strange substances, etc.
But on a road people don't just hurt themselves by reckless conduct. A collision usually has a second participation vehicle, and sometimes many more if a pile-up occurs on a busy road. The other participants did not sign up for hurting themselves, and can be hurt more than the original reckless driver.
But on a road people don't just hurt themselves by reckless conduct. A collision usually has a second participation vehicle, and sometimes many more if a pile-up occurs on a busy road. The other participants did not sign up for hurting themselves, and can be hurt more than the original reckless driver.
Right but smaller kei car have less mass and gonna induce less damage in crash.
So you should be cheering for people to get them as if they crash into you, you're safer
So you should be cheering for people to get them as if they crash into you, you're safer
I was thinking about something similar the other day — why does anyone besides my family really care if I wear a seatbelt or not?
You know what vehicle I see all the time that doesn’t require a license or minimum age, doesn’t have any safety features and can go 15-20 mph alongside traffic and often on a city sidewalk amongst pedestrians? A bicycle ;)
You know what vehicle I see all the time that doesn’t require a license or minimum age, doesn’t have any safety features and can go 15-20 mph alongside traffic and often on a city sidewalk amongst pedestrians? A bicycle ;)
You not wearing a seatbelt puts other people in the vehicle at risk because your body becomes a massive flying object in the cabin when you are hit that can injure or kill others in the vehicle with you.
You the sort of person who will tie down a bag of dog food or bag of soup cans when you load them into a vehicle without a trunk?
Absolutely.
Also the person that ties down loads with multiple ropes | straps truckies hitches and stoppers. Not to mention stopping every few hundred miles to check tensions and reset as required.
Loose loads are a pain in the arse and often dangerous.
A soup can rolling loose and jamming up under a brake or accelerator pedal is something that really happens .. and it's no fun when it does.
Also the person that ties down loads with multiple ropes | straps truckies hitches and stoppers. Not to mention stopping every few hundred miles to check tensions and reset as required.
Loose loads are a pain in the arse and often dangerous.
A soup can rolling loose and jamming up under a brake or accelerator pedal is something that really happens .. and it's no fun when it does.
I just put them in passenger foot area, good enough.
Yes. I always put seatbelts on big stuff in the rear seats
I’d really prefer not to kill anybody else I’m sharing the road with, all else equal. It would be quite traumatic for that persons family and for me too.
True. Which is why I would like to make it the law that all motor vehicle occupants should wear helmets. This will mean saving billions of life years lost through traumatic brain injuries.
What if the helmets were giant (unlike bike helmets, the rider doesn't have to carry the
entire weight or air resistance). Then, instead of filling the helmets with hard styrofoam, we could fill them with something even softer, maybe a compressible gas. People could obviously store them in the vehicle. It might be annoying to wear them all the time, so we could mandate that cars detect when you are about to be in a crash and slam a helmet on your head. Although, come to think of it, it doesn't need to surround your whole head. What if we could make it just appear between your head and anything you were going to hit. Hey, we could even have those things hold the micro helmets. Since they are filled with air, we can use air pressure to deploy them fast, these flexible bags of air.
You're kind of making their point for them.
It's dumb to mandate helmets or any other specific technology because it removes the possibility for something better or for context-based decisionmaking.
Suppose you ride your motorcycle into the desert and then lose your helmet into a canyon. Your phone is dead. Your choices are a thirty hour walk out of the desert which might cause you to die of dehydration, or riding your motorcycle without a helmet. Should you get a ticket for making the obvious choice?
It's dumb to mandate helmets or any other specific technology because it removes the possibility for something better or for context-based decisionmaking.
Suppose you ride your motorcycle into the desert and then lose your helmet into a canyon. Your phone is dead. Your choices are a thirty hour walk out of the desert which might cause you to die of dehydration, or riding your motorcycle without a helmet. Should you get a ticket for making the obvious choice?
I'm not sure how you think I'm making their point for them. They said safety rules infringe on their freedom, and added an example of a more severe safety rule that would infringe on their freedom. I pointed out we also implemented a rule that does the thing they implied was more severe.
Meanwhile, there is a general necessity defense to violating all traffic laws for your motorcycle example. We don't list every possible emergency or every possible rule we would allow an exception to.
Meanwhile, there is a general necessity defense to violating all traffic laws for your motorcycle example. We don't list every possible emergency or every possible rule we would allow an exception to.
> I'm not sure how you think I'm making their point for them.
They argued against mandating helmets in cars. Your point was that we could do something better than helmets and less inconvenient, namely airbags. But that is an argument for not mandating helmets. And the same argument generalizes to any specific technology. What happens when someone comes up with something better than an airbag but then it doesn't satisfy the rule "is an airbag" and is therefore prohibited?
> Meanwhile, there is a general necessity defense to violating all traffic laws for your motorcycle example.
In practice this kind of general exception either consumes the rule or isn't available when it legitimately applies. If you can say you lost your helmet and would have been stranded then everyone says this and you can't enforce the law. But if you can't claim that when it's true then the necessity defense isn't meaningful.
And for the same reason the exceptions are typically excessively narrow. Suppose you lose your helmet while camping, so you have plenty of food and water and can make the 3-day walk back to civilization. There is no risk of death. But then you have a three day walk for what would have been a two hour ride, which is going to make you late for work on Monday. Is not being late for work a necessity? And yet, is it reasonable to punish someone who makes that choice?
They argued against mandating helmets in cars. Your point was that we could do something better than helmets and less inconvenient, namely airbags. But that is an argument for not mandating helmets. And the same argument generalizes to any specific technology. What happens when someone comes up with something better than an airbag but then it doesn't satisfy the rule "is an airbag" and is therefore prohibited?
> Meanwhile, there is a general necessity defense to violating all traffic laws for your motorcycle example.
In practice this kind of general exception either consumes the rule or isn't available when it legitimately applies. If you can say you lost your helmet and would have been stranded then everyone says this and you can't enforce the law. But if you can't claim that when it's true then the necessity defense isn't meaningful.
And for the same reason the exceptions are typically excessively narrow. Suppose you lose your helmet while camping, so you have plenty of food and water and can make the 3-day walk back to civilization. There is no risk of death. But then you have a three day walk for what would have been a two hour ride, which is going to make you late for work on Monday. Is not being late for work a necessity? And yet, is it reasonable to punish someone who makes that choice?
Yes. Catering for extreme edge cases is a waste of time, just pay your ticket dumbass, how the fuck you even "lose" a helmet and why the fuck you didn't bring a phone charger?
Given the chance of the story being fabricated close to 100% catering for it is unreasonable.
Given the chance of the story being fabricated close to 100% catering for it is unreasonable.
You can make the exact same example, except someone without a driving license finds a car. I doubt you're opposed to mandating driver licenses, though.
You're not making the point you think you are. All a driver license proves is that you took a basic class as a teenager and have been paying the government a fee since then. You could get the same benefit just by adding the class to the high school curriculum.
> You could get the same benefit just by adding the class to the high school curriculum.
This doesn't contribute to the upkeep of roads in the same manner as a yearly tax on those that use them.
So no, not the same benefit at all.
This doesn't contribute to the upkeep of roads in the same manner as a yearly tax on those that use them.
So no, not the same benefit at all.
You're thinking of car tax and fuel tax.
But also, the value of roads scales poorly with any of these things. The ability to have a package delivered to your front door is valuable regardless of whether or not you even have a car, and the value of it depends on what's in it rather than how much the truck cost. The most sensible way to fund any kind of basic infrastructure is from general revenues.
But also, the value of roads scales poorly with any of these things. The ability to have a package delivered to your front door is valuable regardless of whether or not you even have a car, and the value of it depends on what's in it rather than how much the truck cost. The most sensible way to fund any kind of basic infrastructure is from general revenues.
The point is to discourage use of certain vehicles, not to fund anything.
But yes, truck used to haul building materials for a building site is the vehicle fulfilling its purpose and any replacement for that purpose being suboptimal.
Truck bought to haul 2 bags of groceries is not. Tax the second one.
But yes, truck used to haul building materials for a building site is the vehicle fulfilling its purpose and any replacement for that purpose being suboptimal.
Truck bought to haul 2 bags of groceries is not. Tax the second one.
Is it telepathy that allows you to claim that you know what I'm thinking?
I'm stating that a number of charges go towards the upkeep of roads and related services (at least in the country I'm present in) these charges include driver and vehicle licences, fuel taxes, etc.
> So the most sensible way to ..
Proposing an alternative doesn't negate the present practices, moreover it makes sense that as much of the public cost associated with roads should come from those that use the roads the most.
I'm stating that a number of charges go towards the upkeep of roads and related services (at least in the country I'm present in) these charges include driver and vehicle licences, fuel taxes, etc.
> So the most sensible way to ..
Proposing an alternative doesn't negate the present practices, moreover it makes sense that as much of the public cost associated with roads should come from those that use the roads the most.
Helmets are still advantageous and will continue to abate TBIs in that tool regimen. In addition, helmets can be used in a backwards compatible way to increase safety in older cars (which make up a very large fraction of vehicles on the street).
[deleted]
> why does anyone besides my family really care if I wear a seatbelt or not?
I care for a basic and selfish reason beyond the "human missile" one: if I'm in a car crash with you and there's only one bed available in the ER, I don't want your lack of a seatbelt to be the source of a hard choice by the doctors operating on us.
I care for a basic and selfish reason beyond the "human missile" one: if I'm in a car crash with you and there's only one bed available in the ER, I don't want your lack of a seatbelt to be the source of a hard choice by the doctors operating on us.
Don't worry that bed will be occupied by a opioid addict anyway.
Plus nobody should have to scrape you off asphalt
If you opt out of ER visits and are ok with being left to die if you’re in a car accident, sure, don’t wear a seatbelt.
Also, you know who dies in much greater numbers than pedestrians due to vehicle crashes? The pedestrians walking by the bicyclists.
So should pedestrians be forced to wear massive armors of steel when they walk around?
Oh wait, that’s how so many awful American cities are designed. With absolutely no space for pedestrians who have to drive everywhere.
In reality there’s only 1 source of danger on streets. Massive 2 ton vehicles that endanger their own occupants and everyone around them. Take away the 2 tons of metal usually carrying 1 person and everyone is safe.
Also, you know who dies in much greater numbers than pedestrians due to vehicle crashes? The pedestrians walking by the bicyclists.
So should pedestrians be forced to wear massive armors of steel when they walk around?
Oh wait, that’s how so many awful American cities are designed. With absolutely no space for pedestrians who have to drive everywhere.
In reality there’s only 1 source of danger on streets. Massive 2 ton vehicles that endanger their own occupants and everyone around them. Take away the 2 tons of metal usually carrying 1 person and everyone is safe.
MX-5's for everyone!
But yeah, without cars motorcycles and scooters suddenly become much safer way of transport
But yeah, without cars motorcycles and scooters suddenly become much safer way of transport
[deleted]
Technically it's a drain on society's safety nets. If people hurt themselves it requires investments of health care workers and tax dollars. Now this isn't a really strong argument in the US, since we don't have socialized healthcare, but it's not nonexistent either.
Also, the other argument goes that "people don't know how to actually get what they want for themselves, and will act against their own true self-interests". Which is definitely true to an extend but the devil is in how far you're willing to stretch that.
Also, the other argument goes that "people don't know how to actually get what they want for themselves, and will act against their own true self-interests". Which is definitely true to an extend but the devil is in how far you're willing to stretch that.
> Technically it's a drain on society's safety nets.
The solution to this is to replace safety nets with transfer payments. Don't provide people with healthcare, provide them with money with which they can buy healthcare or insurance. This also stops the subsidy from ratcheting up the cost of the thing, because if you can drive 30 minutes out of your way to save a thousand dollars you do it, but if the government is paying either way then you don't.
And then if people want to buy less safe cars, insurance carriers will charge them higher premiums.
> Also, the other argument goes that "people don't know how to actually get what they want for themselves, and will act against their own true self-interests".
This is nothing more than paternalism and has proved wrong time and again. It turns out that on average people understand their own situation better than far away generalist policymakers, even before you add in lobbyist influence.
Which isn't to say that an individual will never make a mistake. But legislators make mistakes at scale. Whereas if you want to get individuals to change their behavior in a way that genuinely benefits them, all you have to do is tell them about it, not punish them if they hear you out and still want to do something else.
The solution to this is to replace safety nets with transfer payments. Don't provide people with healthcare, provide them with money with which they can buy healthcare or insurance. This also stops the subsidy from ratcheting up the cost of the thing, because if you can drive 30 minutes out of your way to save a thousand dollars you do it, but if the government is paying either way then you don't.
And then if people want to buy less safe cars, insurance carriers will charge them higher premiums.
> Also, the other argument goes that "people don't know how to actually get what they want for themselves, and will act against their own true self-interests".
This is nothing more than paternalism and has proved wrong time and again. It turns out that on average people understand their own situation better than far away generalist policymakers, even before you add in lobbyist influence.
Which isn't to say that an individual will never make a mistake. But legislators make mistakes at scale. Whereas if you want to get individuals to change their behavior in a way that genuinely benefits them, all you have to do is tell them about it, not punish them if they hear you out and still want to do something else.
> This also stops the subsidy from ratcheting up the cost of the thing, because if you can drive 30 minutes out of your way to save a thousand dollars you do it, but if the government is paying either way then you don't.
If the government is paying, why would it be cheaper 30 minutes away? One of the main features of single payer systems is that the single payer can impose a price list, and control any “ratcheting of prices” as you put it
If the government is paying, why would it be cheaper 30 minutes away? One of the main features of single payer systems is that the single payer can impose a price list, and control any “ratcheting of prices” as you put it
A price list is a price control. Then no one has any incentive to lower the price beyond that so there is no price competition.
If they set the price too low, you get shortages or long queues or sacrifice quality and no one can do better because that would require charging more, which isn't allowed.
If they set the price too high they're overpaying, which is what happens in any system where the providers have political influence, as is manifestly the case in the US. Then new competitors can't lower the price because it's set by corrupt politicians and more efficient providers aren't allowed to return the difference to patients who choose them.
And you can screw up in both directions at once. The list price is too low for a high cost of living area so you can't have a provider in a convenient location for people willing to pay more, but is too high for a provider in a less expensive area who then has no incentive to pass on their lower costs to price sensitive consumers. If the government tries to pay them each a different amount then patients have no reason to avoid the higher cost one which increases healthcare spending.
If they set the price too low, you get shortages or long queues or sacrifice quality and no one can do better because that would require charging more, which isn't allowed.
If they set the price too high they're overpaying, which is what happens in any system where the providers have political influence, as is manifestly the case in the US. Then new competitors can't lower the price because it's set by corrupt politicians and more efficient providers aren't allowed to return the difference to patients who choose them.
And you can screw up in both directions at once. The list price is too low for a high cost of living area so you can't have a provider in a convenient location for people willing to pay more, but is too high for a provider in a less expensive area who then has no incentive to pass on their lower costs to price sensitive consumers. If the government tries to pay them each a different amount then patients have no reason to avoid the higher cost one which increases healthcare spending.
We're not talking about a controlled economy trying to set prices on an open market.
We're talking about a single purchaser using its power to impose prices on suppliers. It's hardly unique - how do you think Walmart keeps its prices as low as possible? By leveraging their power.
And all your aguments seem a bit moot when you look at countries with single-payer systems - they just work, at a per-person cost that is far lower than the US
We're talking about a single purchaser using its power to impose prices on suppliers. It's hardly unique - how do you think Walmart keeps its prices as low as possible? By leveraging their power.
And all your aguments seem a bit moot when you look at countries with single-payer systems - they just work, at a per-person cost that is far lower than the US
> It's hardly unique - how do you think Walmart keeps its prices as low as possible? By leveraging their power.
Walmart is subject to competitive pressure. If they squeeze suppliers too hard and quality suffers or some suppliers refuse to meet their demands, consumers can go buy products from a different retailer.
In cases where you actually do have a private monopolist, is is terrible.
> And all your aguments seem a bit moot when you look at countries with single-payer systems - they just work, at a per-person cost that is far lower than the US
In the US the medical providers have significant political influence which results in a regulatory environment that favors high prices and there is no reason to expect a single payer system in the same environment to change that.
In some systems the providers have less political influence, but many of those systems have long queues or refuse care on the basis of cost or have other deficiencies with no recourse.
It's also entirely possible to have a socialized system which is more efficient than the status quo in the US but less efficient than a system that actually exposed providers to competitive pressure. The cost efficiency of the existing US healthcare system is a bar level with the ground.
Walmart is subject to competitive pressure. If they squeeze suppliers too hard and quality suffers or some suppliers refuse to meet their demands, consumers can go buy products from a different retailer.
In cases where you actually do have a private monopolist, is is terrible.
> And all your aguments seem a bit moot when you look at countries with single-payer systems - they just work, at a per-person cost that is far lower than the US
In the US the medical providers have significant political influence which results in a regulatory environment that favors high prices and there is no reason to expect a single payer system in the same environment to change that.
In some systems the providers have less political influence, but many of those systems have long queues or refuse care on the basis of cost or have other deficiencies with no recourse.
It's also entirely possible to have a socialized system which is more efficient than the status quo in the US but less efficient than a system that actually exposed providers to competitive pressure. The cost efficiency of the existing US healthcare system is a bar level with the ground.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but do you really not understand that you are not the only one hurt when you crash a car? I often see this with regards to car crashes, people often say "the only one you hurt is yourself", and I feel like I must be on drugs or something, because I am pretty damn sure that this is not true
All your points about 25-year-old safety standards is perfectly valid.
However, re: "crumple zones":
The streets of the USA are basically an arms race. Bigger and bigger and bigger because "it's safer". Safer for you, maybe. This is how we ended up with pickup trucks that have hoods as high as your shoulders.
Kei trucks and cars are great, and in Japan they're quite safe (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24499113/) but the context is completely different. Cars weigh half as much, the drivers are twice as careful and traveling at half the speed.
However, re: "crumple zones":
The streets of the USA are basically an arms race. Bigger and bigger and bigger because "it's safer". Safer for you, maybe. This is how we ended up with pickup trucks that have hoods as high as your shoulders.
Kei trucks and cars are great, and in Japan they're quite safe (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24499113/) but the context is completely different. Cars weigh half as much, the drivers are twice as careful and traveling at half the speed.
I can remember at least one instance this year where an entire family died from when their Kei car got rolled over in what would have been a survivable accident in a vehicle built to full size safety standards.
Kei cars are popular because they’re cheap to run and small, but they are a tin can on wheels.
Kei cars are popular because they’re cheap to run and small, but they are a tin can on wheels.
>I feel like this sort of thing is a fantastic illustration of the irresponsible level
Motorcycles are much less safe when compared to this truck. Would you also ban them, or do they receive an arbitrary exception?
Motorcycles are much less safe when compared to this truck. Would you also ban them, or do they receive an arbitrary exception?
I had a similar thought today about e-bikes and other micro vehicles; why do we allow e-bikes to ride on the road, but ban small trucks and tuk-tuks like this one?
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/i-actually-bought-a-cheap-ele...
https://electrek.co/2021/10/25/i-actually-bought-a-cheap-ele...
Because e-bikes are hard to differentiate from pedal bikes legally and we haven't done it yet, and if you advocated banning bicycles on roads I wouldn't like you very much.
A better comparison, as far as flowing with traffic, is a moped (i.e. Honda Navi, top speed 55mph) rather than a motorcycle (i.e. Suzuki SV650, top speed 130mph).
I had to look it up myself, not being sure, but "the Navi isn’t freeway-legal in many states" [0]
So probably allowing them on city streets but not highways is what I would propose, to answer your question. I don't think banning them altogether is right (for the Kei truck or Navi) since micromobility has all sorts of benefits where it fits.
[0] https://ultimatemotorcycling.com/2022/07/28/2022-honda-navi-...
I had to look it up myself, not being sure, but "the Navi isn’t freeway-legal in many states" [0]
So probably allowing them on city streets but not highways is what I would propose, to answer your question. I don't think banning them altogether is right (for the Kei truck or Navi) since micromobility has all sorts of benefits where it fits.
[0] https://ultimatemotorcycling.com/2022/07/28/2022-honda-navi-...
I'm not a car guy, but I do know that people get really passionate about them, join local clubs and make new friends through their shared love of some particular old vehicle.
They also put huge amounts of effort into maintaining them, learn new skills and keep themselves busy.
So while vintage cars and the culture around them do obviously cause deaths due to accidents, I'd suspect they also perform a huge amount of social good in terms of reducing social isolation, depression/despair, Alzheimer's and a whole lot of other subtle things I didn't even consider.
They also put huge amounts of effort into maintaining them, learn new skills and keep themselves busy.
So while vintage cars and the culture around them do obviously cause deaths due to accidents, I'd suspect they also perform a huge amount of social good in terms of reducing social isolation, depression/despair, Alzheimer's and a whole lot of other subtle things I didn't even consider.
A kei truck is still safer than taking a bicycle or motorcycle on public roads. Do you propose banning those?
How about the giant trucks with huge blindspots known to roll over kids in driveways, where's the outrage there?
> But there's no good reason we need to allow people to import old, unsafe vehicles like this.
Sure there is, there's a gap in the market for small efficient light trucks/vans for around town and in urban environments, things that don't need to go on interstates. Light vehicles that don't mess up the roads like 6000lb+ vehicles. But we aren't allowed to have nice things like this due to the tariff situation, so the 25yr loophole is currently the only way.
How about the giant trucks with huge blindspots known to roll over kids in driveways, where's the outrage there?
> But there's no good reason we need to allow people to import old, unsafe vehicles like this.
Sure there is, there's a gap in the market for small efficient light trucks/vans for around town and in urban environments, things that don't need to go on interstates. Light vehicles that don't mess up the roads like 6000lb+ vehicles. But we aren't allowed to have nice things like this due to the tariff situation, so the 25yr loophole is currently the only way.
Nah, this is some terrible whataboutism. Stick to the topic.
no it's not, it addresses the core of the idiotic argument.
"we should ban participating in traffic without the safety features of a new car." No we shouldn't for the same reason we don't ban bicycles, motorbikes, scooters,... which are at least as dangerous to drive as an old tiny car.
"we should ban participating in traffic without the safety features of a new car." No we shouldn't for the same reason we don't ban bicycles, motorbikes, scooters,... which are at least as dangerous to drive as an old tiny car.
>And I know if I was the driver of the other vehicle, and survived, even if I wasn't the one at fault, I'd probably need years of expensive therapy to get past it all.
>But there's no good reason we need to allow people to import old, unsafe vehicles like this.
If this is your argument, motorcycles seems like a much better target.
>But there's no good reason we need to allow people to import old, unsafe vehicles like this.
If this is your argument, motorcycles seems like a much better target.
As I understand it, there was a time when people would buy expensive luxury European cars in their countries of manufacture, and import them for their own use, which cut out the local wing of the manufacturer, local dealers, etc. This probably offered a broader range of models and options and may also have saved money.
They could care less about the 25-year-old cars-- it's the new ones, the ones that probably meet or exceed the spirit of US safety standards but have some marginal differences from US norms or lack a formal certification, that they're after.
They probably offered the 25 year carveout to make sure they could get the restriction on the important commercial market without creating a dispute with a niche community (the vintage-car enthusiasts) that could derail the whole regulatory process.
To me, the equally weird part is the car-of-Thesus situation. We have a regulatory environment that says basically "here's a block of rust that was demolished in an accident and sat for 25 years in the rain in a scrapyard, but because it has the VIN plate from an ancient Mustang/Defender/Porsche/etc. on it, you can build basically an entirely new car around it and not have to honour modern rules about safety or emissions." There isn't an obvious way to incentivize the classic-car people to think in terms of those standards when they retrofit.
They could care less about the 25-year-old cars-- it's the new ones, the ones that probably meet or exceed the spirit of US safety standards but have some marginal differences from US norms or lack a formal certification, that they're after.
They probably offered the 25 year carveout to make sure they could get the restriction on the important commercial market without creating a dispute with a niche community (the vintage-car enthusiasts) that could derail the whole regulatory process.
To me, the equally weird part is the car-of-Thesus situation. We have a regulatory environment that says basically "here's a block of rust that was demolished in an accident and sat for 25 years in the rain in a scrapyard, but because it has the VIN plate from an ancient Mustang/Defender/Porsche/etc. on it, you can build basically an entirely new car around it and not have to honour modern rules about safety or emissions." There isn't an obvious way to incentivize the classic-car people to think in terms of those standards when they retrofit.
Well, motorcycles are allowed and they are far less safer in crash than any kei-truck would be.
I'm not getting one because of reasons you mentioned (litte kei tipper would be perfect size vehicle for my needs) but I don't see why other people should be stopped from.
If you want safety ban anything bigger than 2 ton for non-commercial use first, the SUVs and trucks sizing gonna kill more people than some random buying a kei truck for themselves.
I'm not getting one because of reasons you mentioned (litte kei tipper would be perfect size vehicle for my needs) but I don't see why other people should be stopped from.
If you want safety ban anything bigger than 2 ton for non-commercial use first, the SUVs and trucks sizing gonna kill more people than some random buying a kei truck for themselves.
Driving in the US is such a nightmare because everyone seems to think it’s their own video game and where they are the main character avoiding cops and NPCs.
I'd note that pickup trucks made in north America were last to have such simple safety equipment as head restraints in the back seat. Whereas I'd note that import trucks on the domestic market had them first. Some of us aren't made of money and a Japanese import even at 15 (Canada) or 25 years old may have a much better price and lower milage then a domestic vehicle half as old. Trucks have been last to the game for safety and emissions standards. I'd argue these imports with engines half the displacement of sub-compact cars are a boon for DIY and handy-people.
Even if it did largely comply with FMVSS, it wouldn't be importable if less than 25 years old, because it doesn't meet US specific regs, including US crash testing. I couldn't buy a brand new Skoda and bring it over, even though it met all the Euro crash testing and safety regs, because it doesn't have everything done to be sold over here. The only exceptions are stuff that's 25 years old, and stuff that's so limited production that it doesn't have to meet it (like a Koenigsegg, I think).
The one thing that opened my eyes about this view of safety is living in a developing country.
Riding a motorcycle without helmets, kids on their laps, cars without seatbelts, makeshift trucks with cargo randomly stacked and not strapped down.
They are completely oblivious to the safety risks. But you know what? 99% of the time it doesn't matter. They live long and healthy lives.
I get the sense the West has progressively improved safety to the point that even small incremental improvements are viewed as "you'll be dead without them".
Riding a motorcycle without helmets, kids on their laps, cars without seatbelts, makeshift trucks with cargo randomly stacked and not strapped down.
They are completely oblivious to the safety risks. But you know what? 99% of the time it doesn't matter. They live long and healthy lives.
I get the sense the West has progressively improved safety to the point that even small incremental improvements are viewed as "you'll be dead without them".
The ones that don't die or get permanently maimed in an accident live long and healthy lives, you mean. Which is still a very large majority, sure, but dying from a road accident is still a way more common way to die in those countries (7-15 times more likely than where I live), and it's a sudden death that can happen to anyone of any age. A kid needlessly dying because his parent irresponsibly carried her on their lap is such a waste of a life.
One of the wildest examples of literal survivorship bias I’ve ever heard
It's not. Even with their lack of concern around safety the chances of dying in a motor vehicle wreck are almost nil.
Like I said, in the West, people are so concerned about safety they loose all sense of relativeness. Saying that "wow, your car doesn't have airbags, you're as good as dead" is a ridiculous statement.
Like I said, in the West, people are so concerned about safety they loose all sense of relativeness. Saying that "wow, your car doesn't have airbags, you're as good as dead" is a ridiculous statement.
What are you talking about? Hitting your head really hard can permanently injure you, or kill you.
Sure, but what are the chances of getting into a crash where an air bag would make a difference?
A million to one? Less?
It's not that airbags aren't more safe, it's that they protect you from a risk with a very low probability.
Yet people act like you're reckless for driving a vehicle without them. It's a lack of understanding of probabilities. Humans routinely focus on a small risk while ignoring larger risks.
A million to one? Less?
It's not that airbags aren't more safe, it's that they protect you from a risk with a very low probability.
Yet people act like you're reckless for driving a vehicle without them. It's a lack of understanding of probabilities. Humans routinely focus on a small risk while ignoring larger risks.
Are there companies making modern versions of these vehicles (with the same small size and great fuel economy but with modern safety features)?
The 25 year thing is a loophole intended to allow for the import of vintage cars.
I’m going to guess that you also want to outlaw motorcycles?
How does this reconcile with motorcycles? Ok that is whataboutism I will admit! But this is going to be safer than a bike most likely.
> But a 30mph head-on collision with another vehicle will almost certainly kill you in one of these trucks.
A 30mph collision in the average American SUV will kill all the occupants too, because they have absolutely no safety features.
A 30mph collision in the average American SUV will kill all the occupants too, because they have absolutely no safety features.
Except for airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, automatic braking, etc.
Yeah, they don't really have crumple zones, that's kind of the problem.
"Look at how strong this truck is, it survived an accident with barely a scratch!" just means it transferred all the energy to the wet squashy piles of mixed meat inside.
"Look at how strong this truck is, it survived an accident with barely a scratch!" just means it transferred all the energy to the wet squashy piles of mixed meat inside.
The NHTSA publishes safety ratings for every vehicle. You can look at their crash test reports. The 2021 Chevy Tahoe[1] and the 2020 Ford Explorer[2] are comparable to the 2022 Toyota Corolla.[2] The photos clearly show the presence of crumple zones.
In each of the PDFs, you can find the occupant data summary on page 6 and the photos starting around page 42.
[1] https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v10000/v11300...
[2] https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v10000/v11000...
[3] https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v10000/v10600...
In each of the PDFs, you can find the occupant data summary on page 6 and the photos starting around page 42.
[1] https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v10000/v11300...
[2] https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v10000/v11000...
[3] https://nrd-static.nhtsa.dot.gov/reports/vehdb/v10000/v10600...
I love everything about the idea except safety. You look like a frugal genius until a routine fender bender becomes fatal.
Unfortunately this isn’t Japan and you’ll be driving on stroads designed for high speed driving with too many conflict points, sharing the road with drunk drivers in their RAM 1500 who barely needed to have a pulse to qualify for a license.
Alternatives:
- Vans, commercial or just an old minivan, like OP’s dad bought. They don’t have the popularity tax of trucks. I also think that the closed cabin of a van is better than a truck bed 90% of the time.
- If you can handle the shorter bed, the Ford Maverick is priced very well with a high mpg hybrid powertrain, and you can use it as a comfortable daily family vehicle.
- Big box home improvement store rentals. These often beat U-Haul prices and convenience in my experience.
- Suck it up and buy a truck. While they cost a lot they’re also designed to be do-all family vehicles with good amenities, ride quality, and comfort.
- Haul less stuff. Do you need to haul things? If your job is hauling stuff you can probably justify the truck investment and deduct it from your taxes. If not then maybe you don’t need to haul things.
- Instacart? I’m pretty sure people with trucks will do Home Depot runs for you.
In my opinion, judging by OP’s other blog post about finance and debt, he’s letting an excessively frugal mentality get in the way of getting the right tool for the job. OP quipped that old trucks still have insanely high values, and that goes both ways: if he buys a $30k truck and sells it in 10 years it’s probably still going to be worth $15k. Spending $15k in 10 years is the same cost as a bus pass.
Unfortunately this isn’t Japan and you’ll be driving on stroads designed for high speed driving with too many conflict points, sharing the road with drunk drivers in their RAM 1500 who barely needed to have a pulse to qualify for a license.
Alternatives:
- Vans, commercial or just an old minivan, like OP’s dad bought. They don’t have the popularity tax of trucks. I also think that the closed cabin of a van is better than a truck bed 90% of the time.
- If you can handle the shorter bed, the Ford Maverick is priced very well with a high mpg hybrid powertrain, and you can use it as a comfortable daily family vehicle.
- Big box home improvement store rentals. These often beat U-Haul prices and convenience in my experience.
- Suck it up and buy a truck. While they cost a lot they’re also designed to be do-all family vehicles with good amenities, ride quality, and comfort.
- Haul less stuff. Do you need to haul things? If your job is hauling stuff you can probably justify the truck investment and deduct it from your taxes. If not then maybe you don’t need to haul things.
- Instacart? I’m pretty sure people with trucks will do Home Depot runs for you.
In my opinion, judging by OP’s other blog post about finance and debt, he’s letting an excessively frugal mentality get in the way of getting the right tool for the job. OP quipped that old trucks still have insanely high values, and that goes both ways: if he buys a $30k truck and sells it in 10 years it’s probably still going to be worth $15k. Spending $15k in 10 years is the same cost as a bus pass.
If I found a middle eastern lamp and rubbed it and out popped a genie granting me three wishes, my first would be for there to be a modern electric Kei truck broadly available in North America.
I am only slightly exaggerating.
I am only slightly exaggerating.
I have good news for you (assuming they survive long enough to ship): https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/13/23757902/telo-truck-elect...
A base price of $50k?! Not a chance.
$11,250 straight from China.
https://electricimportmotors.com/collections/trucks/products...
https://electricimportmotors.com/collections/trucks/products...
I'm surprised they didn't do the fold flat side on the bed, would make it much more practical.
They also have a model with that for $13,500
We were in the process of getting one in NY, when we starting hearing the rumors of people registrations being revoked after the fact. We got hip to the, I think Montana, out-of-state, register it under and LLC trick, but ultimately decided against going that route. A lot of anti-Kei truck lobbying going round and it's affecting many of the surrounding states. It's lame.
I live near a Big Ten university in the Midwest, and they use these little trucks and vans for their maintenance crews. I imagine that for an institutional user with multiple of them, things like getting approval and spare parts is easier. One thing they probably help with is that a major university typically has horrific parking, but you can cram one of those little trucks into a place that a car won't fit into.
If I am thinking of the same Big 10 university (orange and black mini trucks sometimes with IIRC green flashing lights), the interesting thing is that they are also driven on public streets connecting the different parts of campus. Of course? When you are the largest employer in the state (indeed, when you are the state), I suppose rules don't apply.
I'd imagine it depends on street rules.
Here in California I used to work for San Jose State University when I was attending. I worked an oncampus job where I was expected to drive a golf cart to and from campus (the job office itself was located off campus, about a mile away, during my tenure there). So I drove up to 25mph with that electric cart max on the street, and then also drove it all over campus on sidewalks. Very usable and pretty roughly equivalent to a kei car.
Here in California I used to work for San Jose State University when I was attending. I worked an oncampus job where I was expected to drive a golf cart to and from campus (the job office itself was located off campus, about a mile away, during my tenure there). So I drove up to 25mph with that electric cart max on the street, and then also drove it all over campus on sidewalks. Very usable and pretty roughly equivalent to a kei car.
> you can cram one of those little trucks into a place that a car won't fit into
In Japan there are usually a couple of "Kei-only" parking spots which are usually on some corner or side where a normal car wouldn't fit. A great use of space!
In Japan there are usually a couple of "Kei-only" parking spots which are usually on some corner or side where a normal car wouldn't fit. A great use of space!
Yeah as a campus maintenance vehicle these seem perfect.
Definitely do your research if you live in another state, a growing number are refusing to register Kei cars at all. They know what they are, they aren’t baffled when you try, they just have rules against it now. No surprise, this is largely because many states’ DMVs source their regulations from the same org.
Hmmm… I wonder where that org gets their funding.
This is cool. However, for $1000 (including add-on jack and registration, no insurance required) I just bought a 5x8 trailer that can hold more weight. I tow it with my RAV4 Hybrid that gets ~40MPG.
Was gonna say, not in US but here local hardware stores let you rent these for $20/half day maybe. Or free for short periods. So if you need it once a month and nowhere to park it, this can be good!
There’s an SF-based startup working on an electric truck for urban audiences, called Telo. Might be interesting to those who find kei trucks appealing but want a proper fully street legal alternative.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/telo-electric-mini-truck-fir...
https://www.motortrend.com/news/telo-electric-mini-truck-fir...
This was the first thing my brain jumped to: "It would be a hell of a lot easier to comply with NHTSA regulations if you didn't have a combustion engine."
At that point, the issue is safety and crumple zones, which, again, should be vastly easier when you don't need an engine.
At that point, the issue is safety and crumple zones, which, again, should be vastly easier when you don't need an engine.
What if part of the appeal of kei trucks is the price? I think the niche these vehicles are filling for some is that they're small _and_ cheap. Maybe a fully street legal version can't match kei truck pricing, but $50k also isn't it.
Think it has same problem of you-die-on-any-crash at least looking at where driver is.
We just need someone to attach a small tipper truck bed to a Yaris...
We just need someone to attach a small tipper truck bed to a Yaris...
I am finding an odd intersection of Kei trucks and geeks lately.
My friend imports KEI trucks and Vans for the mid Atlantic region and always has inventory: https://ohkei-imports.com
As it turns out a bunch of people want these things and he's been importing and shipping all over the US.
My friend imports KEI trucks and Vans for the mid Atlantic region and always has inventory: https://ohkei-imports.com
As it turns out a bunch of people want these things and he's been importing and shipping all over the US.
Not seeing much of anything on that site. Just a few references to social websites, and a phone number, and that's about it.
So, where's the website that shows their actual inventory?
So, where's the website that shows their actual inventory?
These trucks are very cheap, they cost less and they consume less gas, and the elites don't like it when we spend less, they want us to spend more
The author mentions not wanting a Ranger or Tacoma, but I still think those are better options especially considering the drivers position…
Even better is a 80’s/90’s full size 2 door pickup. Same size as a modern Tacoma/Ranger, but with payloads comparable to todays F250’s. Throw in working AC, airbags, and a wealth of cheap replacement parts and it’s a no-brainer
Even better is a 80’s/90’s full size 2 door pickup. Same size as a modern Tacoma/Ranger, but with payloads comparable to todays F250’s. Throw in working AC, airbags, and a wealth of cheap replacement parts and it’s a no-brainer
When I tried to convince my buddy, a major Toyota truck fan, that really _this_ was the kind of truck evryone actually drives in Japan, he didn't want to believe me 8-)
This kind of thing is just obviously not allowed in the US, right? I mean, where's the luxury? What happens to all that social status that comes from needing a small ladder to climb into the cockpit of your rigg?
I was also mildly entertained by "damn metric system" 8-) Yea...
I have to say though, it's encouraging to see news of someone in the US coming to grips with the advantages of such a vehicle.
I've always liked the 1/2 tilting 3 wheelers like the Honda Canopy: https://wonderfulengineering.com/honda-has-introduced-a-new-...
This kind of thing is just obviously not allowed in the US, right? I mean, where's the luxury? What happens to all that social status that comes from needing a small ladder to climb into the cockpit of your rigg?
I was also mildly entertained by "damn metric system" 8-) Yea...
I have to say though, it's encouraging to see news of someone in the US coming to grips with the advantages of such a vehicle.
I've always liked the 1/2 tilting 3 wheelers like the Honda Canopy: https://wonderfulengineering.com/honda-has-introduced-a-new-...
> This kind of thing is just obviously not allowed in the US, right? I mean, where's the luxury? What happens to all that social status that comes from needing a small ladder to climb into the cockpit of your rigg?
You need to remember just how different the Japanese domestic market is when it comes to roads and vehicles. It's a tiny island nation with low speed limits (37 mph everywhere but divided highways, which are 62mph) and a lot of people. The US is 26 times larger with 1/10th the population density, and lots of high-speed highways.
You need to remember just how different the Japanese domestic market is when it comes to roads and vehicles. It's a tiny island nation with low speed limits (37 mph everywhere but divided highways, which are 62mph) and a lot of people. The US is 26 times larger with 1/10th the population density, and lots of high-speed highways.
For the curious, it is pronounced "Kay" as in "okay" and not kii as in "key".
there are similar mini-trucks e.g. in Italy with left-hand drive, which could simplify import/usage
Might be interesting to import from Taiwan instead, if you'd like to keep it Asian but prefer left-hand drive. For example, CMC Veryca (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMC_Veryca ) which was originally based off a Mitsubishi design. Interestingly Wikipedia seems to indicate that it even has an American importer already…
But the reliability / parts availability of Japanese kei trucks is unmatched, unfortunately.
Any links or specific models?
Piaggio porter / daihatsu hijet
https://www.olx.pl/d/oferta/piaggio-porter-2009r-1-3-16v-pfa...
https://www.olx.pl/d/oferta/piaggio-porter-2009r-1-3-16v-pfa...
Interestingly the new generation grew into proper car size, complete with 1.5L engine. Something like Fiat Panda is closer to kei cars
This truck seems to have most of the desirable Kei truck qualities (besides price) but it’s an EV with modern features.
https://www.telotrucks.com/
https://www.telotrucks.com/
> Base Price: $49,999
I think you've missed a major component of Kei Truck popularity. You can literally get 10x Kei Trucks for that cost.
I think you've missed a major component of Kei Truck popularity. You can literally get 10x Kei Trucks for that cost.
First price and second it's an Extended cab so you loose truck bed space. Not a kei truck replacement just because those 2 things. Unless you don't mind the price and never haul longer things.
Also most kei trucks the side of the truck bed folds down giving you more of a flat bed which for some things is super super handy.
Also most kei trucks the side of the truck bed folds down giving you more of a flat bed which for some things is super super handy.
It appears the only overlapping feature of that truck is small size. A Kei truck is a work truck not an “urban adventure vehicle.”
Ditch the crew cab and lower the height of the bed and you’re starting to enter the same territory.
Ditch the crew cab and lower the height of the bed and you’re starting to enter the same territory.
For people looking for an EV alternative, you can search on youtube for Chang Li trucks, they fit the bill for most people.
This guy's youtube channel name implies he does this for a living, you can get more info from him, I guess:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ufkBRrQoSA
here is another guy who modified his, and put a small solar panel, and now his charging requirements have been reduced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgDpqd38HtQ
This guy's youtube channel name implies he does this for a living, you can get more info from him, I guess:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ufkBRrQoSA
here is another guy who modified his, and put a small solar panel, and now his charging requirements have been reduced.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgDpqd38HtQ
$9k for the little car and $11k for the pickup isn't bad
the real cost is less than half of that, the extra costs are because of shipping and govt duties and what not.
If such products were made in the country, or if a streamlined process existed for import, the cost could be reduced significantly.
If such products were made in the country, or if a streamlined process existed for import, the cost could be reduced significantly.
I love the esoteric-ness of owning a Kei truck, but they are in no way a replacement for a regular pickup truck. You really need a separate car for dailying, unless you never drive anywhere other than around your farm.
Yeah, I'm not sure how owning (and maintaining/registering/insuring/inspecting) another barely roadworthy vehicle competes with just having a trailer or renting a vehicle from Home Depot for a few hours now and then.
For just moving stuff around the farm my neighbors have basically electric golf carts.
For just moving stuff around the farm my neighbors have basically electric golf carts.
> You'll need to find a truck that is at least 25 years old. In the US, cars more youthful than that must comply with FMVSS (safety standards). If you buy a more recent vintage, you won't be able to get it registered anywhere, so pay attention to that model year!
Not quite. The US government cares about the date of manufacture, which doesn't always align with model years. Today you could legally import a vehicle manufactured in June of 1998, even if it is a 1999 model year.
Not quite. The US government cares about the date of manufacture, which doesn't always align with model years. Today you could legally import a vehicle manufactured in June of 1998, even if it is a 1999 model year.
I think the real use-case for these is for use on a large campus: University, Corporate, or otherwise. We have a half-dozen at work for getting between buildings, and the key advantage is that you can park almost anywhere for a short time without blocking traffic. We also have rideshare bikes, and sidewalks, but sometime you need to get a heavy box to the factory quickly, and these are perfect.
There's a small coastal town near San Francisco where a bunch of the farmers/ranchers/other locals imported a fleet of Suzuki Carry's, IIRC. I was chatting with one owner and they told me most haven't bothered registering them since they're basically only used on private properties or the very small, low traffic roads into and out of town.
Funny that this was just posted. Some idiot was driving this on the highway on Thursday. These are cool if you live in a rural area, and will stay in small streets where you at best would need to not go more than 40mph. I actually won't mind one especially if I can put a snow plow on it.
This reminds me of the saga Donut went thru to get a similar-sized truck from china: https://youtu.be/yRG0Wai4sR0
@danwilkerson, were you driving around the north hills ~1 hour ago?
Just passed one of these and thought to myself, huh, that's pretty neat, only to come home to see this post.
Just passed one of these and thought to myself, huh, that's pretty neat, only to come home to see this post.
Not me - I've seen a few others bopping around tahn. There are dozens of us!
n.b - you can't do this in california due to emissions regulations without an expensive emissions retrofit
These HN threads about trucks are amazing. It’s like watching the same movie over and over again
* Kei trucks are the coolest. Big gubment is making it so we can’t register them due to protectionism!
* Chicken tax chicken tax chicken tax
* Big trucks cause more crashes because reasons!
* Trucks are just lifestyle vehicles and nobody actually needs or uses them
Over and over and over again
* Kei trucks are the coolest. Big gubment is making it so we can’t register them due to protectionism!
* Chicken tax chicken tax chicken tax
* Big trucks cause more crashes because reasons!
* Trucks are just lifestyle vehicles and nobody actually needs or uses them
Over and over and over again
Don't forget the small penis accusation.
I have an F250, which I drive about 2000 miles a year, almost 100% of the time it has a >30ft trailer behind it. But that one time that the stars align and I need it for a grocery trip, a bunch of people are thinking "see, that guy doesn't need a truck" and it reinforces whatever internal monologue they have going.
Meanwhile, approximately everyone here routinely drives alone in a vehicle capable of carrying 5-7 people. (and right about now, someone is about to reply with 'ride a bike, cars suck!')
I have an F250, which I drive about 2000 miles a year, almost 100% of the time it has a >30ft trailer behind it. But that one time that the stars align and I need it for a grocery trip, a bunch of people are thinking "see, that guy doesn't need a truck" and it reinforces whatever internal monologue they have going.
Meanwhile, approximately everyone here routinely drives alone in a vehicle capable of carrying 5-7 people. (and right about now, someone is about to reply with 'ride a bike, cars suck!')
I dunno, sounds like your beef is with the folks who buy the same truck as you for no reason other than the look, not the folks who are seeing and mocking that trend.
The latter seem to exist in far greater quantity, however. I live in a suburban neighborhood with plenty of trucks, and I see them doing truck things all the time. Towing boats, travel trailers, fifth wheels, or hauling stuff. I can't think of a single example within a quarter of me where someone owns a truck for looks. These are all just garden variety F150s and similar, rarely the higher trim models, and not a one of them is a bro-dozer.
I won't deny the silly bro-dozers exist, they definitely do. But at least in my area they are just a fraction of the total trucks on the road.
I won't deny the silly bro-dozers exist, they definitely do. But at least in my area they are just a fraction of the total trucks on the road.
They are statistically not doing pickup truck things. Pickup truck owners haul stuff once per year on average. That's the difference that you're not seeing.
You think that the problem is those "bro-dozers", and everyone else just needs a truck. The reality is that most people don't need a truck, and by driving one everyone else's life gets worse.
You think that the problem is those "bro-dozers", and everyone else just needs a truck. The reality is that most people don't need a truck, and by driving one everyone else's life gets worse.
Yes, the problem is the "imma gonna haul whatever thing to my house" instead of, you know, have it delivered by someone. They'd win time but lose the (small) psychological satisfaction
> Don't forget the small penis accusation.
Except it is about having a tiny penis (or more accurately, a big ego):
https://theweek.com/articles/929196/case-against-american-tr...
"Furthermore, the specific design trend of the massive hood sticking way out in front of the driver, with a cliff-face front grille obstructing the view several feet out in front of the wheels, is entirely a marketing gimmick. The explicit point is to create an angry, aggressive face that will intimidate others, especially pedestrians. Don't take it from me, take it from the guy who designed the latest GM Sierra HD: "The front end was always the focal point... we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it's going to come get you. It's got that pissed-off feel," he told Muscle Cars & Trucks. "The face of these trucks is where the action is," marketing expert Mark Schirmer told the Wall Street Journal's Dan Neil, "a Ford has to say Ford from head on, a Chevy must shout Chevy. Every pickup has become a rolling brand billboard and the billboards are big." And as Neil discovered when he was nearly run down in a Costco parking lot, that massive grille creates a massive blind spot."
Except it is about having a tiny penis (or more accurately, a big ego):
https://theweek.com/articles/929196/case-against-american-tr...
"Furthermore, the specific design trend of the massive hood sticking way out in front of the driver, with a cliff-face front grille obstructing the view several feet out in front of the wheels, is entirely a marketing gimmick. The explicit point is to create an angry, aggressive face that will intimidate others, especially pedestrians. Don't take it from me, take it from the guy who designed the latest GM Sierra HD: "The front end was always the focal point... we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it's going to come get you. It's got that pissed-off feel," he told Muscle Cars & Trucks. "The face of these trucks is where the action is," marketing expert Mark Schirmer told the Wall Street Journal's Dan Neil, "a Ford has to say Ford from head on, a Chevy must shout Chevy. Every pickup has become a rolling brand billboard and the billboards are big." And as Neil discovered when he was nearly run down in a Costco parking lot, that massive grille creates a massive blind spot."
> Meanwhile, approximately everyone here routinely drives alone in a vehicle capable of carrying 5-7 people. (and right about now, someone is about to reply with 'ride a bike, cars suck!')
I mean, yeah. Ride a bike, cars suck.
I mean, yeah. Ride a bike, cars suck.
> and right about now, someone is about to reply with 'ride a bike, cars suck!'
Naah, I wouldn’t do a thing that. I’ve lived in low-bike suburbs — hated it, but I know the score. :)
Naah, I wouldn’t do a thing that. I’ve lived in low-bike suburbs — hated it, but I know the score. :)
I'm sorry that people are occasionally, silently, but unfairly judging your choice of vehicle, presumably.
I don't think that counters the fact that many do people drive gigantic vehicles they will never need, though.
> Meanwhile, approximately everyone here routinely drives alone in a vehicle capable of carrying 5-7 people. (and right about now, someone is about to reply with 'ride a bike, cars suck!')
You've managed to lump everyone who disagrees with you into either the "hypocrite" or "fanatic" boxes.
I drive a Mini Cooper, not that that's worth bragging about. How will you dismiss my opinion?
I don't think that counters the fact that many do people drive gigantic vehicles they will never need, though.
> Meanwhile, approximately everyone here routinely drives alone in a vehicle capable of carrying 5-7 people. (and right about now, someone is about to reply with 'ride a bike, cars suck!')
You've managed to lump everyone who disagrees with you into either the "hypocrite" or "fanatic" boxes.
I drive a Mini Cooper, not that that's worth bragging about. How will you dismiss my opinion?
> You've managed to lump everyone who disagrees with you into either the "hypocrite" or "fanatic" boxes.
Not intentionally. Just the ones who loudly proclaim that most people driving a pickup don't actually need it. To everyone else who is just driving the car they feel best suits their needs, more power to them. This also includes the vast majority of pickup owners.
Not intentionally. Just the ones who loudly proclaim that most people driving a pickup don't actually need it. To everyone else who is just driving the car they feel best suits their needs, more power to them. This also includes the vast majority of pickup owners.
Just curious, what so you do for a living? Or what's your hobby?
Isn't the F250 a huge vehicle and that trailer seems huge, is it a boat?
Isn't the F250 a huge vehicle and that trailer seems huge, is it a boat?
Software, just like so many others on HN. The trailer is an RV we take out every couple weeks during the nice weather season. It takes over 1300 pounds of payload capacity just for the trailer itself, which doesn't leave much for anything else (hitch, cargo, humans, canine). That's how I ended up trading the F150 we had for an F250. And yes, the F250 is pretty big. It's actually not a lot bigger dimensionally than an F150 (same cab, even), but it's usually taller, and it has a very stiff suspension and a live axle in the front, so it feels a lot bigger. Thus why mine rarely goes anywhere it doesn't need to go. My Model 3 is far more comfortable as a daily.
I'm confused - are you missing a zero?
The F150's towing capacity appears to be 5,000 to 14,000 pounds (random source: https://veteransfordtampa.com/ford-f-150-towing-capacity). You could tow a 1,300 pounds trailer with a regular car, e.g. the 2023 Ioniq 5 has 2,300 pounds of towing capacity.
The F150's towing capacity appears to be 5,000 to 14,000 pounds (random source: https://veteransfordtampa.com/ford-f-150-towing-capacity). You could tow a 1,300 pounds trailer with a regular car, e.g. the 2023 Ioniq 5 has 2,300 pounds of towing capacity.
1300 lbs tongue weight.
Which is a big fucking trailer at 10% tongue weight.
Which is a big fucking trailer at 10% tongue weight.
No, he's not towing 1,300 pounds, he's towing something that reduces carried cargo capacity by 1,300 pounds. (The impact is, IIRC, typically a bit over 10% of loaded trailer weight.)
I'm slightly confused.
In Europe Volkswagen Passat, which is a regular sedan, can tow up to 2000kg braked (I think that's 4400 pounds) and 750 kg unbraked (1600 pounds):
https://www.carsguide.com.au/volkswagen/passat/towing-capaci...
Unless these sites use different measurement systems for towing (could be, I have no idea about these things), wouldn't a much smaller but more powerful car do?
In Europe people regularly tow RV trailers with Volvo V60 wagons...
In Europe Volkswagen Passat, which is a regular sedan, can tow up to 2000kg braked (I think that's 4400 pounds) and 750 kg unbraked (1600 pounds):
https://www.carsguide.com.au/volkswagen/passat/towing-capaci...
Unless these sites use different measurement systems for towing (could be, I have no idea about these things), wouldn't a much smaller but more powerful car do?
In Europe people regularly tow RV trailers with Volvo V60 wagons...
Having looked into RV trailers in both the US and EU, I can say that the US trailers are by and large MUCH bigger than in the EU. A quick Google search showed a trailer[0] on sale in the UK, weighing in at 3289 lb. This is a typical size that I would see being towed around where I live in southern Germany.
In the US, a typical trailer[1] size could come in at ~4500 lbs. Mind you, this weight is what we call dry, not counting the weight of a filled fresh water tank, important living items (i.e. food, dishes, clothing, etc), and any other items you might want to take camping.
Although this is (slightly) on the more extreme side, "fifth-wheels"[2] are also common to see on the road. These certainly require larger vehicles to pull.
[0]https://autoline24.uk/-/auction/caravan-trailers/Bailey/Pega... [1]https://rv.campingworld.com/rvdetails/used-travel-trailer-rv... [2]https://rv.campingworld.com/rvdetails/used-fifth-wheel-rvs/2...
Although this is (slightly) on the more extreme side, "fifth-wheels"[2] are also common to see on the road. These certainly require larger vehicles to pull.
[0]https://autoline24.uk/-/auction/caravan-trailers/Bailey/Pega... [1]https://rv.campingworld.com/rvdetails/used-travel-trailer-rv... [2]https://rv.campingworld.com/rvdetails/used-fifth-wheel-rvs/2...
> Having looked into RV trailers in both the US and EU, I can say that the US trailers are by and large MUCH bigger than in the EU.
Hmmm... interesting.
It does make sense, though. Everything is bigger in the US: cars, roads, parking lots, nature reserves, people :-p
> https://rv.campingworld.com/rvdetails/used-fifth-wheel-rvs/2...
This is basically a house on wheels at this point :-)
Hmmm... interesting.
It does make sense, though. Everything is bigger in the US: cars, roads, parking lots, nature reserves, people :-p
> https://rv.campingworld.com/rvdetails/used-fifth-wheel-rvs/2...
This is basically a house on wheels at this point :-)
So your F250 is an accessory for your recreational vehicle.
Thanks for confirming
You forgot the inevitable post by waiseristy mocking people who like these trucks and grouping everyone into single category of idiots.
...and, inevitably, someone to make the above comment. Maybe you can be the one to finally break the cycle :-)
Break the cycle how? Every time one of these threads come up I suggest buying a domestic full size 90’s truck instead and nobody gives a shit. The only things that gain traction in these threads is people shitting on their cultural enemies. Because Truck People bad!!
Maybe you can help break the cycle by looking at the huge used truck market we already have
Maybe you can help break the cycle by looking at the huge used truck market we already have
I'm missing why this is a problem for you: TFA makes your exact point, and the author explains that they settled on a Kei truck for a combination of price and mileage reasons.
I don't care about "truck people." I thought the article was nice and, as a non-driver, I find the Kei trucks much more interesting to look at (and ride in).
I don't care about "truck people." I thought the article was nice and, as a non-driver, I find the Kei trucks much more interesting to look at (and ride in).
> Truck People bad!!
One thing that I try to remind people of is that pickup trucks are the best selling vehicles in the US because the approximate definition of 'Truck People' is everyone.
One thing that I try to remind people of is that pickup trucks are the best selling vehicles in the US because the approximate definition of 'Truck People' is everyone.
Here I thought the childmashers were best selling because there is literally no alternative, as is the topic of this entire thread we are in.
Childmashers? That's kind of ridiculous.
There are much smaller pickups than an F150, for sure. Like a Maverick, to use an easy example. And it's a popular choice, too, though it's probably not going to unseat the F150 anytime soon.
There are much smaller pickups than an F150, for sure. Like a Maverick, to use an easy example. And it's a popular choice, too, though it's probably not going to unseat the F150 anytime soon.
I think most trucks nowadays (even "small" ones, which used to be considered "normal" sized) are big enough that you won't see an average sized 9 year old standing right in front of the hood.
orangepurple(2)
> buying a domestic full size 90’s truck instead
90s trucks still had poor mileage and were less safe overall than new vehicles, they aren't gonna be many people's top choice.
My current pet theory is that an equally big problem to the "aggressive bro styling super high front grill" issues is an overall decline in relative income/living standards. Less space + money to have a family car + a utility truck, so your truck ALSO has to have a huge cabin, and do everything else the family car should do too, so it gets huge overall even if the bed is no bigger or more useful.
90s trucks still had poor mileage and were less safe overall than new vehicles, they aren't gonna be many people's top choice.
My current pet theory is that an equally big problem to the "aggressive bro styling super high front grill" issues is an overall decline in relative income/living standards. Less space + money to have a family car + a utility truck, so your truck ALSO has to have a huge cabin, and do everything else the family car should do too, so it gets huge overall even if the bed is no bigger or more useful.
I had a 95 F-150 that I sold off like 20 years ago and I’m contemplating another (or possibly a 250). Like you say, it wasn’t particularly safe: It had one non-progressive airbag and no ABS. If you didn’t keep a bunch of sandbags in the back, the rear end was liable to come around right after any rain.
You too can be a proud owner of a beat up truck with 200k-300k miles for 10,000 dollars that needs another 5-10k of maintenance!
Nobody says truck people bad, you're strawmanning all over this thread. I've owned two trucks, a full sized and a compact, I'm a republican and I believe that if I want to drive a 90s Kei truck and take the risk of dying in a car accident I should have the ability to assume that risk for myself. Same as driving a car from the 60s.
Nobody says truck people bad, you're strawmanning all over this thread. I've owned two trucks, a full sized and a compact, I'm a republican and I believe that if I want to drive a 90s Kei truck and take the risk of dying in a car accident I should have the ability to assume that risk for myself. Same as driving a car from the 60s.
Funny how these supposedly unsafe vehicles come from a country with way less traffic deaths than the safer USA
Because it's cars that kill people and ours are too big, too many, and driven by every idiot.
Washington State legislature was going to reduce the number of DUIs before prison from FIVE to FOUR (not 1 like it should be), but they chose not to because it'd be "too expensive". Yup, keep feeding us into the orphan killing machine.
Washington State legislature was going to reduce the number of DUIs before prison from FIVE to FOUR (not 1 like it should be), but they chose not to because it'd be "too expensive". Yup, keep feeding us into the orphan killing machine.
Yep it sucks. Even in "better" places cars still find a way to ruin things though, so it's a constant battle.
[deleted]
Usually followed by someone saying "I'd like to see that thing in a crash test against <giant pickup model>".
Well maybe if the giant truck driver was able to see over their hood, they wouldn't be in a collision.
lately i've seen a lot of people legitimately complaining that trucks look "too aggressive" and are "scary".
it just makes me laugh.
it just makes me laugh.
Some of those trucks are quite high and will kill pedestrians and even destroy other cars more in higher number.
It’s just physics. If you need it, fine, but seeing how much they are selling of those, a lot of us are starting to doubt how much of it is need vs want.
It’s just physics. If you need it, fine, but seeing how much they are selling of those, a lot of us are starting to doubt how much of it is need vs want.
The ability to destroy other cars in an accident is a selling point in some… cultures. I remember sitting at the bar back in my very red state home town listening to a guy go on and on about how his new Dodge Ram would absolutely obliterate a “liberal’s Prius” if he crashed into it. He was not talking about the relative occupant safety difference between the two cars. He was specifically boasting about how he believed his truck can destroy other vehicles.
These must be the sort of people that put testicles on their trucks
They legitimately are scary from an objective viewpoint. I love driving them, but they kill people for no reason and something needs to done at a systemic level to curb it. Modern vehicles have an array of cameras, sensors, and automatic braking, yet pedestrian deaths per vehicle-mile are higher than 30 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo
They're probably talking about the front grille being a vertical wall taller than the standing height of a 5-foot woman, which would knock you under the wheels without the driver even seeing you.
Why does it make you laugh when the automotive industry literally brags about it?
Here's an article covering how pickups are becoming more deadly to others in crashes, becoming more common on the road, and being purposefully styled to look aggressive:
https://theweek.com/articles/929196/case-against-american-tr...
"Furthermore, the specific design trend of the massive hood sticking way out in front of the driver, with a cliff-face front grille obstructing the view several feet out in front of the wheels, is entirely a marketing gimmick. The explicit point is to create an angry, aggressive face that will intimidate others, especially pedestrians. Don't take it from me, take it from the guy who designed the latest GM Sierra HD: "The front end was always the focal point... we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it's going to come get you. It's got that pissed-off feel," he told Muscle Cars & Trucks. "The face of these trucks is where the action is," marketing expert Mark Schirmer told the Wall Street Journal's Dan Neil, "a Ford has to say Ford from head on, a Chevy must shout Chevy. Every pickup has become a rolling brand billboard and the billboards are big." And as Neil discovered when he was nearly run down in a Costco parking lot, that massive grille creates a massive blind spot."
The article continues, discussing how actual commercial work vehicles (sprinter vans and cab-over box trucks for example) don't show the same styling trends.
Here's an article covering how pickups are becoming more deadly to others in crashes, becoming more common on the road, and being purposefully styled to look aggressive:
https://theweek.com/articles/929196/case-against-american-tr...
"Furthermore, the specific design trend of the massive hood sticking way out in front of the driver, with a cliff-face front grille obstructing the view several feet out in front of the wheels, is entirely a marketing gimmick. The explicit point is to create an angry, aggressive face that will intimidate others, especially pedestrians. Don't take it from me, take it from the guy who designed the latest GM Sierra HD: "The front end was always the focal point... we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it's going to come get you. It's got that pissed-off feel," he told Muscle Cars & Trucks. "The face of these trucks is where the action is," marketing expert Mark Schirmer told the Wall Street Journal's Dan Neil, "a Ford has to say Ford from head on, a Chevy must shout Chevy. Every pickup has become a rolling brand billboard and the billboards are big." And as Neil discovered when he was nearly run down in a Costco parking lot, that massive grille creates a massive blind spot."
The article continues, discussing how actual commercial work vehicles (sprinter vans and cab-over box trucks for example) don't show the same styling trends.
> nobody actually needs or uses them
These make me chuckle. Those people have never done home improvement projects or just projects that require picking up 8ft sheets of plywood or 20 bags of mulch.
These make me chuckle. Those people have never done home improvement projects or just projects that require picking up 8ft sheets of plywood or 20 bags of mulch.
Home Depot rents a big truck for $20-$40 for the 2 hours I'd need it. I could rent this truck every weekend for 30 years for the same price as a giant truck. And I wouldn't have to worry about its maintenance either.
Once you do this math it becomes very difficult to justify truck ownership without also being responsible for something that needs hauling/towing on a regular basis. The truth is that in 2023 a truck is a lifestyle purchase for many people as evidenced by the average cost of a new F-150 and the inability to buy buy a no-frills Regular Cab pickup outside of fleet sales.
If you'd have told me 15 years ago that people would be buying pickup trucks brand new for $60k with regularity I wouldn't have believed you but here we are...
If you'd have told me 15 years ago that people would be buying pickup trucks brand new for $60k with regularity I wouldn't have believed you but here we are...
I don’t disagree with your main point, but you can definitely still get regular cab no frills trucks. (Sadly that’s just not what most people buy)
...and so many dealers don't stock them. I honestly don't remember the last time that I saw a new one on a lot, let alone the road. Of course n=1 and all of that but I used to own one and live in a rural area so I don't think I'm far off.
Depends on use case. I do more than what I originally posted. I do pull a trailer with a small tractor on it frequently and move a lot more stuff than normal people do. Renting a truck would be more of a hassle for this type of work than for me to just pay the premium and own the thing out right.
> I could rent this truck every weekend for 30 years for the same price as a giant truck.
That assumes the price never increases for 30 years.
> I could rent this truck every weekend for 30 years for the same price as a giant truck.
That assumes the price never increases for 30 years.
> > I could rent this truck every weekend for 30 years for the same price as a giant truck.
> That assumes the price never increases for 30 years.
While the average truck owner is paying interest, I'll be earning interest, so let's call it even.
> That assumes the price never increases for 30 years.
While the average truck owner is paying interest, I'll be earning interest, so let's call it even.
My wife and I completely gutted and renovated a 2 bedroom home built in 1905 with a used 2007 Dodge Magnum and a roof rack. We initially bought it for a road trip around the US because it saved us thousands of dollars in fuel economy (it was a 3.5l V6) over the month-long trip compared to any van or truck. I initially bought it with the intent of selling it right after the road trip, but it ended up being a really well-rounded vehicle.
I grew up in south central Pennsylvania, and while we still have a fair amount of farmers in that region, most people buy trucks because they're marketed to, not because they're the right vehicle to own.
I clicked through here because I've seen a couple of Kei trucks in Philadelphia lately.
I grew up in south central Pennsylvania, and while we still have a fair amount of farmers in that region, most people buy trucks because they're marketed to, not because they're the right vehicle to own.
I clicked through here because I've seen a couple of Kei trucks in Philadelphia lately.
Is the price premium worth occasional use? Every DIY store I've ever been to has truck rental outside, and it's a lot less than a new truck.
My corolla takes 10' long boards. Never maxed out the bags of mulch, but it's >10 for sure.
Have been thinking about a roof rack for sheet goods. Can't see why it wouldn't work.
Have been thinking about a roof rack for sheet goods. Can't see why it wouldn't work.
Usually cars of this class can only support about 100lbs on the roof. We have Prius and RAV4 Hybrid with that limitation. The roof racks are still very useful, but I wouldn’t put 4x8 sheets of anything on them.
I moved a bunch of sheet goods with my Civic coupe, by which I mean I moved sheet goods on a bunch of occasions, one or two each time. The problem comes out to be weight, and ease of loading/driving.
The real solution for moving larger things is a trailer. UHaul rents trailers for the occasional use ~$20/day, no mileage charge. I say occasional use because it takes effort to go and get it, and UHaul builds them like brick shithouses. So you can get a lighter one that's nicer to tow if you buy one for a few kilobucks.
I inherited a light crossover SUV that's more than capable of towing a 5x10 trailer with a modest amount of weight around town. It does highways too, but keeping ~65 rather than ~80. If I were still limited to the Civic and needed to move stuff on the regular, I'd buy an even lighter trailer.
And a trailer has very little maintenance compared to getting another motor vehicle. I've started bringing a pallet or two and putting them down under whatever I get so I can just fork stuff off at home (and then in the case of stuff from big box stores, fork the rejects right back on to get returned).
These Kei trucks look neat, but I don't think they would actually solve many problems I have. A dump bed would be fantastic, but if I really needed that I could just bite the supply shortage bullet and get a dump trailer.
The real solution for moving larger things is a trailer. UHaul rents trailers for the occasional use ~$20/day, no mileage charge. I say occasional use because it takes effort to go and get it, and UHaul builds them like brick shithouses. So you can get a lighter one that's nicer to tow if you buy one for a few kilobucks.
I inherited a light crossover SUV that's more than capable of towing a 5x10 trailer with a modest amount of weight around town. It does highways too, but keeping ~65 rather than ~80. If I were still limited to the Civic and needed to move stuff on the regular, I'd buy an even lighter trailer.
And a trailer has very little maintenance compared to getting another motor vehicle. I've started bringing a pallet or two and putting them down under whatever I get so I can just fork stuff off at home (and then in the case of stuff from big box stores, fork the rejects right back on to get returned).
These Kei trucks look neat, but I don't think they would actually solve many problems I have. A dump bed would be fantastic, but if I really needed that I could just bite the supply shortage bullet and get a dump trailer.
I put 20 bags of mulch in an SUV last weekend, one that almost certainly could carry less than TFA's mini-truck-thing. What gives?
That's the expensive route if you do it too often. I can buy 2 yards of mulch scooped into the back of my truck for quite a bit less than the cost of 20 bags. And then there's things like gravel, which you really don't want to try and get in bags at all. I could probably get by with a smaller truck if I didn't tow a big trailer with it, but I'd still choose an actual open-bed truck over an SUV or minivan.
Different strokes for different folks. It's going to depend a lot on what you routinely haul.
Different strokes for different folks. It's going to depend a lot on what you routinely haul.
Sure. To your point above: do you think that trucks are the best-selling car in the US because Americans are routinely hauling loose gravel, or could it be something else? I suspect it's something else.
I suspect it's because a modern crew cab half-ton pickup is pretty close to the perfect vehicle for a big swath of Americans. Huge interior room for the family, enough bed & payload to be useful for everything from hauling appliances to gravel, dirt, lumber, whatever.
Just about the only thing it doesn't do well is fuel economy and driving in downtown urban areas. A large number of people rank those issues low on the list.
Just about the only thing it doesn't do well is fuel economy and driving in downtown urban areas. A large number of people rank those issues low on the list.
I mostly do outdoor activities that benefit from more interior space. I'd probably buy a trailer if mulch, gravel, etc. hauling became an issue. You're right that it depends on what you need space that's more than a sedan or a hatchback for.
As someone who lives in an old house on a fair bit of land, I sort of agree. A sedan wouldn't really work for me but an SUV with a roof rack is mostly just as good as a truck. (And I suppose I could always buy a trailer if it were really an issue.) The enclosed space is more generally useful than a truck bed.
I have a long wheelbase van with room racks, plus a trailer.
But pick up the overwhelm majority of items in the Celica, a two door hatch.
Anyways, suppliers deliver.
But pick up the overwhelm majority of items in the Celica, a two door hatch.
Anyways, suppliers deliver.
I think vans are a great choice, but from what I can find they’re not any cheaper than trucks. ie, getting one for less than 40k seems to be out of the question.
To be fair to those people, they also don’t think you need your plywood and mulch because you should live in a nice little apartment with a surely altruistic landlord who takes care of every need that the plywood and mulch could satisfy.
Someone who does home improvements probably own a house. Shouldn't they be able to, you know, buy an apartment, if "the mising middle" apartments were available in the US and not banned by a million laws (freedom! :-) ).
As others have noted, these are fantastic utility vehicles, which have an important place in many rural areas. They can come with many important features like 4x4, diff-lock, dump beds, etc, all with a very reasonable 660cc serviceable engine.
I personally suspect that this push comes from lobbying by side-by-side manufacturers, like John Deere and Polaris (which go new starting at $16k).
[0] - https://www.thedrive.com/news/42057/rhode-island-is-trying-t...